NationStates Jolt Archive

it is increasingly obvious to me that biscuitisland and its socialism sytem is the best in the world. i want to know if any can deny that biscuitisland socialism isn't the best. (this is socialism with no corruption)

Socialism is more or less being forced to be free and equal. Republic or any other kind of Democracy lets you truly be free. If you work hard, you get more respect, money, and overall a greater time in life. If your some pothead that sits at home and hits up every night, your a loser in life. Democracy lets you determine your own fate, with rewards of being good, and nothing with being bad. Basically Democracy = Karma System..in a certain matter of speaking.

Isn't socialism kinda like communism? Atleast that's how I've understood it.

"Socialism is less extreme than communism, but no less foolish. The sheer economic might of free-capitalist states far outweighs any possible value of goodness one can attribute to the workings of socialist policy."

-Heinrid Abadas

"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." John Maynard Keynes

Callisdrunian democratic socialism is the best. We frown on capitalism as those who truly hold the power in a capitalist nation care much more about their pocket-books than their homeland or their countrymen.

"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." John Maynard Keynes

Right... I'll note that the internet, which you're using right now, has proliferated largely due to corporate interests, whether they are working directly for our benefit or not. Also the cell phone--a device which has revolutionized and revitalized the communications indusrty immensely, has done much more good for civilization than anything our government has created in the last 50 years: the atom bomb comes readily to mind, for instance.

Arguing for socialism as a viable economic system makes about as much sense as... as... hell, I cant even think of a logical parallel. I was cranking the metaphor well and it came up dry. Sorry.

Also, this thread is most certainly in the wrong place. Off to General with ye!

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.

- Winston Churchill

'Cause like, I can stomp on both arguments of this thread with one quote. Don't let this degarde into a-

$0<!@1!$|\/| PWNZ0RZ!

<4p!+@1!$|\/| PwnZ0Rz $0<!@1!$|\/|1!1one!

y0|_|r /\/\0/\/\!!

We have a lot of those. So don't go declaring how communism can work on paper, how it can't work in real life, how greed and corruption and blah de fricken blah. To each his own.

"Socialis is economic slavery" Patrick Walsh

It's quite obvious to me that the best form of government is a dictatorship if you are the dictator.

Isn't socialism kinda like communism? Atleast that's how I've understood it.
thats a strange thing for a norwegian to say. Socialism is what Norway has. You know, high taxes on personal wealth for the purpose of funding public health and welfare.

Oh poo poo. Why can't some tell the difference between Socialism/Communism? I'd expect maybe an American to say that, but not a european. THeres a big diff. Here in Czech Rep we dealt with the hell of Communists for decades and always tried to get rid of em. We have democratic govt now, but still very socialist...and despite its preblems, I'd NEVER want to go back to old system. In some ways we have more INDIVIDUAL freedoms than even in USA, people and police much less concerned what you do privately or socially. Last time I was in USA I always see policeman arresting people who are drunk or for smoke marywanna. This is big waste of time and money.

---------------------------------

Socialism is where the workers own and manage the means of production rather than take orders from bosses.

I agree with the fact that Socialism does not work in the real world. Yeah, if humans were all angels and everyone got along and shared, it would work, but humans don't work like that. Without the competition of the capitalist system, there is no motivation for improvement or to do anything at all. Would you try to do your work well if you busted your butt for fifteen hours at your job and still get paid the same as the bum sitting around all day doing nothing? I don't think so. Socialism is simply a slightly milder form of Communism, but it amounts to the same thing: misery. Take a look at history and all the countries that have tried such systems. Russia is still trying to recover economically from 50-70 years of Communist rule. Stalin slaughtered 10 million of his own people in the name of Communism. Mao Say Tung in China and the thousands, if not millions, he killed. In short, these political/economic systems based on sharing, universal brotherhood, etc. don't work. They never have, and, as far as I am concerned, they never will. Humans are a selfish, greedy, and independent species. That's just the way we were made. In my opinion, everyone could get along and not have to worry about such political nonsense if people just followed the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. But, since religion seems to have gone out the window along with moral decency, I guess that will take a long time to change the world too. *shakes head in disgust*

Actually, many countries in Europe, especially the scandinavian ones, are quite socialist, so it would appear that socialism does work, at least in Norway, Sweden, etc. Those countries have an extremely high standard of living, so I'd say they're hardly living in "misery."

Actually, many countries in Europe, especially the scandinavian ones, are quite socialist, so it would appear that socialism does work, at least in Norway, Sweden, etc. Those countries have an extremely high standard of living, so I'd say they're hardly living in "misery."

Yes, but what do Sweden and Norway actually do?

Like, besides being Sweden and Norway? The majority of technological Breakthrough continues to come from Capitalist contries. European Health care wouldn't be half of what it was if the US was not Researching and Developing New Medicines.


Alot of European Nations just "exist" and they provide a good life to their people, and thats good. But they are not the World's Leaders.

Socialism is more or less being forced to be free and equal. Republic or any other kind of Democracy lets you truly be free. If you work hard, you get more respect, money, and overall a greater time in life. If your some pothead that sits at home and hits up every night, your a loser in life. Democracy lets you determine your own fate, with rewards of being good, and nothing with being bad. Basically Democracy = Karma System..in a certain matter of speaking.
I would agree if only you could guarantee that every person started off with the same opportunities. However, those born into poverty have a much lower chance of amounting to as much as those born into a wealthy family. Also, "democracy" isn't an economic system, and a country can be democratic and socialist at the same time. The term you're looking for is "Capitalism", or maybe a "Free Market". On a side note, try writing it like this in the future: "You'RE a loser in life".

"English, Motherfucker! Do you speak it?!"
-Pulp Fiction

Yes, but what do Sweden and Norway actually do?

Like, besides being Sweden and Norway? The majority of technological Breakthrough continues to come from Capitalist contries. European Health care wouldn't be half of what it was if the US was not Researching and Developing New Medicines.


Alot of European Nations just "exist" and they provide a good life to their people, and thats good. But they are not the World's Leaders.

Which is more important? Providing a good life for your people? Or pursuing the pompous goal of being the world's "leader"?

The simple fact that they provide good life to their people disproves the statement that socialism only has the effect of "misery." I kinda wish I'd been born in Norway or Sweden, sometimes, actually.

Capitalism: Where one man can get filthy rich off the labor of others.

Socialism: Where one hard working man has the same wealth as a lazy bum.


Can't we just agree that both systems suck?


I agree with the fact that Socialism does not work in the real world. Yeah, if humans were all angels and everyone got along and shared, it would work, but humans don't work like that. Without the competition of the capitalist system, there is no motivation for improvement or to do anything at all. Would you try to do your work well if you busted your butt for fifteen hours at your job and still get paid the same as the bum sitting around all day doing nothing? I don't think so. Socialism is simply a slightly milder form of Communism, but it amounts to the same thing: misery. Take a look at history and all the countries that have tried such systems. Russia is still trying to recover economically from 50-70 years of Communist rule. Stalin slaughtered 10 million of his own people in the name of Communism. Mao Say Tung in China and the thousands, if not millions, he killed. In short, these political/economic systems based on sharing, universal brotherhood, etc. don't work. They never have, and, as far as I am concerned, they never will. Humans are a selfish, greedy, and independent species. That's just the way we were made. In my opinion, everyone could get along and not have to worry about such political nonsense if people just followed the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. But, since religion seems to have gone out the window along with moral decency, I guess that will take a long time to change the world too. *shakes head in disgust*

You know, if Russia or Mao were ACTUAL communists, not "dictatorships in communist clothing," your argument would have a lot more power.

And hopefully no country will ever follow the Ten Commandments.

"Oh man, that band is awesome! I LOVE them!" "WHAT?! Worship of idols! Stone that criminal immidiatly!"

"I dunno man...I'm starting to turn towards Buddhism..." "WHAT? Don't say that shit dude. They'll have your ass stoned if they hear that kinda talk!"

Thank GOD religion is out the window. (he...heheh...heeeeeeh...)

originally posted here (http://invisionfree.com/forums/CACE/index.php?showtopic=1642).


Objections to capitalism fall broadly into two categories, philosophical objections, these being moral or ethical, and material objections, these being political or economic. The former are statements like, ‘it is wrong to exploit the working class,’ or, ‘workers deserve the total value of the products of their labor.’ Neither of these questions impact the physical, day to day operations of a firm, regardless of economic theory, and implicate questions of right and wrong, justice, natural law and so on. These concepts are the true domain of the elite. Capitalists who defend their system with notions of ‘freedom,’ or slippery slopes dooming us to serfdom use abstract arguments to defend a system, which allows them to side step the material failings of capitalism.

If you have an advanced degree in ethics feel free to comment on such questions. However, for the remainder of the world, follow this simple rule: the best argument against is a better argument for something else.

The practical, material arguments for capitalism can be summed up with the cliché, ‘the rising tide raises all boats.’ That is to say that capitalism will always create an increase in standard of living for all people, even if it is hideously unequal. This is usually accompanied by the pareto optimum argument, that this is the best arrangement possible and that you cannot better someone without harming someone else. This infers that any variety of non-capitalism will result in a decrease in standards of living, and the unscrupulous defenders of capitalism will usually claim it will hurt those most immiserated by capitalism. The absurdity of this argument aside, the advantage of showing how a non-capitalist system can produce better results than capitalism removes the necessity of proving these arguments false. In fact, it is possible to accept everything claimed at face value and simply show that non-capitalism can do it better, thus using the internal logic of capitalism against itself, making non-capitalism the moral imperative because it creates ‘the greater good.’

How, then, can this be done? How can we advance a non-capitalist economy without first tearing down capitalism? If you have read your Marx you will realize that, in fact, it is not necessary to tear down anything. In fact, the creation of a communist society was dependant upon changes that would occur in a capitalist economy; industrialization, the creation of labor armies, and most important, the specialization of labor that creates collective ownership of the means of production because no single person or trade can run a factory. Non-capitalism, to work, must be built upon the foundations, the historical and material conditions, of the economy of the present. Put out of your minds worker’s paradises where you only work an hour a day and everyone gets to do whatever they want. Abandon false hopes of abundance and gift economies. If you are serious about non-capitalism you have to live in this world, which means accepting the limitations presented to you.

If that is out of the way we can begin.

To create a non-capitalist system you must first understand capitalism, something that few people can truthfully say they do. Despite what you may think, capitalism is not poverty or rich people lining their own pockets; these things come into play after the system is created, and are not part of the fundamental nature of the system. Capitalism has two basic characteristics, from which the real world corollaries of capitalist economies are drawn: private ownership of the means of production and a labor market.

The first is fairly simple and clear cut: individuals own the machines that create more value. This fact creates several characters that are, to many, part of the basic fabric of capitalist society: the exploitation of labor and the exclusive claim to the value created by labor. Please note when I say exploitation I attach no moral weight to it, I mean simply that the labor theory of value is correct and all value is created by labor; thus, when owners profit from workers, this is exploitation, using someone else for your own gain. This is not important and we must not condemn capitalism for this; the labor theory of value is universal, and holds in all societies. A socialist paradise must exploit laborers as much as a capitalist dystopia must; the only difference would be who claims the product of that labor, which is why it is far more important that private ownership of the means of production means that the owners have exclusive rights to the product of labor.

John Locke’s argument for this arrangement is as follows: in trade, it is possible to purchase something that will produce something else, like a cotton gin or a field. It is equally possible to rent that property, and by renting it you transfer ownership temporarily to the renter, and thus that renter has claims to all products of that property for the duration of the rent. Now Locke would never admit that a labor market is the renting of human beings so naturally he claims that what is bought is their time, though the difference is immaterial; the argument is that because the laborers are being paid their products belong to the person who purchased their time. It’s perfectly logical, if you accept the tenets of contract theory.

A discussion of private ownership would be incomplete without at least a brief explanation on the need for profit. Classical capitalists argue that profit goes right back into the company in the form of investment; this is patently false because, in real terms, profits are measured after the cost of upgrades to replace aging capital goods are included in operating costs. In the morass of Financialism, though, no one is quite sure how profits are generated, but presently profits exist for the very important purpose of paying the owners a fee to entice them to invest or continue to invest in the company because modern corporations live under the specter of debt. A corporation that cannot pay its creditors for just one month will face bankruptcy as investors abandon them, and I challenge anyone to point to a single publicly traded corporation that is not making heavy payments on what it owes someone else.

Profit exists because it is the only incentive that can be used to convince those with the huge amounts of money needed to fund capital expenditures to risk that guaranteed fortune in the market. If there was no money to be made, why would Rockefeller invest his billions? This question will be returned to shortly.

Exclusive property rights mean that laborers can never gain back the products of their labor and must instead purchase them, which creates the labor market. The labor market is not as tidy as private ownership because it emerges through a series of gradual changes in history. In essence, a labor market is created by private ownership of the means of production, because workers no longer have open access to the means of production, and because they must work to eat and survive, must sell their labor and the rights to the products of their labor to the owner of the means of production. The labor market, of course, creates the proletariat, a class that has no control over the basic economic determinants in their lives, and more importantly, a class that is consistently paid less than the total value of the products of their labor.

Beyond these two basic pillars, we turn our attention to the mechanism, the machinery, of a capitalist economy. Here we turn to study of actual economics, something that few in the capitalist world are ever encouraged to learn. They learn capitalism, the internal rules of their machine, without understanding the underlying mechanisms that are universal to all questions of economy. It is this kind of short sightedness that gives rise to absurdities like Fukayama’s ‘end of history’ argument; the impossibility of change seems certain to those without the language or cognitive tools to conceive of a world different from the one they were indoctrinated, excuse me, educated to understand.

To return to the issue of incentive, major proponents of capitalism argue that ‘socialism,’ which is the catchall for non-capitalism, offers no incentive. By this they mean at least one of two things, often both: that existing or attempted non-capitalist systems had no incentive, or that non-capitalism is incapable of offering incentive. They are wrong on both points, though as noted earlier, I need only prove the latter is false, and I will do so by the end of this discussion. For the moment, let us concentrate on capitalism’s methods of incentive.

Michael Douglas, in a frighteningly realistic portrayal, uttered these famous words: ‘Greed is good. Greed works.’ Quite; this is the root, the keystone of capitalist incentive. People want things; if we were all satisfied with a tiny studio apartment, eating government cheese and walking to work there would be no need for us to work forty hours a week. One can easily subsist in such a state with very little effort involved, and though those of us privileged to live in post-industrial countries will call this poverty, if you are satisfied in such a state why would you work harder for things you neither want nor need?

You would not, of course, and so we see that greed is an effective motivator. This works on different levels depending on your class; clearly, capitalists have more to lose than workers, and so will invest in order to assure that their wealth does not lose value as inflation takes its toll. However, the underlying principle is the same; investors are promised either a rising stock price, which means people will pay them more than what they paid for that stock, or dividends, a share of the company’s profits proportional to the amount of stock you own. The promise of personal benefit ensures someone will participate both with labor and investment.

Who then decides how this investment will be used? The owners, of course, they own and control the means of production. There is this great myth that surrounds economics, that capitalist economies are not planned. This argument is patently absurd because clearly production is planned; products spend months, if not years, in development, based upon a company plan that will put X many units into Y many stores by Z year. When someone says ‘planned economy’ with the intent of contrasting a planned economy with capitalism what they are actually addressing is the question of how production is decided, not how it is carried out. Keep this in mind, as it will become very important in the near future.

Investors are enticed in by the promise of profits, which manifest in dividends or rising stock price, and thus in order to obtain investors one must produce that profit they desire. Thus, production is determined based upon not need but profitability. Many ask, why is it that under capitalism people die of preventable diseases, when the medications cost pennies to make, or go hungry when governments pay farmers to leave fields fallow? The simple answer is that there is no profit in giving away food or medication, so it is not done. George Soros notes that the economic realm is amoral, because in his dealings as a businessman his duty, his obligation, was to produce a profit, and so the ‘right’ thing for him to do was produce that profit. Corporations that fail to show profit go under, which costs their employees their jobs, costs their investors their money, and in the end removes a firm from the competitive market, which leads to inferior production by alleviating pressure on other firms to innovate and cut prices. Thus we can see that far from being a cold hearted, willful maliciousness, the failure to provide for those without money is, in fact, an imperative created by the capitalist system itself and, this is important, a fundamental character of the system.

Production is decided based on what is the most profitable, which then moves into the labyrinth of saturation, aggregate demand, the creation of demand, market niches and so on, which is not important right now. All you must note is that production is decided based on profit, not demand.

However, it is claimed that capitalism makes up for this by producing in greater supplies and more efficiently than any other economic system, thus allowing workers to buy more than they would otherwise be capable of. This is the essence of the rising tide argument, and it is not without merit. Abundance is created through industrialization, something that is often demonized by neo-Luddite groups that, frankly, have no place in serious economic discussions. Our standard of living was created by machines that require capitalism to be developed; this theory has long been proven true through practice. A nation simply cannot move from agrarian to industrial economy without capitalism.

Efficiency, though, emerges not from industrialism but from competition. Multiple firms create the same good and vie for a limited market, and by natural forces, each will endeavor to lower prices and increase quality to entice workers to spend their wages on the firm’s product. Firms that charge too much, that cannot keep costs down by using investor’s money wisely, who produce low quality products, will sell fewer units than firms that keep prices and costs down or produce superior products. One look at the computer industry will give you an idea of this process in fast forward.

What is key to note about competition is that it, unlike industrialization, does not require private ownership of the means of production. Private ownership is required for industrialization because that personal incentive, the greed, is what gets the rich to invest in new machines. Once those machines are created it is possible, in theory, to expropriate them and use them to create new wealth for investment, but prior to the creation of the abundance created by industry, wealth exists as gold, or land, and this cannot be turned into heavy industry without creating incentive for innovation and the diversion of production away from consumables into capital goods. On the other hand, competition requires only that firms be separate, produce redundant goods and are rewarded for selling their product. In modern capitalism, the owners of a company, in this case the stockholders, rarely, if ever, work at the business in question, which means the incentive could be applied directly to the workers of the firm rather than paid in dividend without compromising the incentives of competition.

This scheme, though, will remove the incentive for investors, which is a problem in a system when firms are privately owned. If private investors are not offered individual rewards they will not invest, and the workers of a company do not have sufficient saving reserves to fund capital expansion alone.

What you should be seeing is how the various pieces of a capitalist economy fit together. Some like to say they are mutually supportive, and think that if you can yank one out the others will fall. In reality, the system functions like a starfish; if you cut off one arm, it will eventually regenerate, perhaps a little different looking, but fundamentally the same arm that you severed. All pieces must be cut off before the system will die.

How then, if I am to do what I proposed I do earlier, show that a non-capitalist economy can out do capitalism? The key is to find the things that capitalism does poorly, fix them, while retaining the benefits listed above. Capitalism necessarily creates inequality and immiserates a large segment of the global working class; the labor theory of value requires that someone lose in the deal, be exploited and end with less than the value of their labor. In real terms, despite what rising tide advocates might suggest, this inequality has resulted in not just poverty but a shortfall of goods necessary for life, such as the aforementioned food and medicine.

To create a functioning non-capitalist system it is a given some form of revolution is necessary. This creates what are called zero year problems; the problem of converting the existing infrastructure from one system to another, of keeping the nation stable long enough for the changes to take place and so on. For the moment we will not address zero year problems because, while important, they are not crucial to this discussion, which is to provide a more appealing system that capitalism. Of course if this system cannot be achieved because of zero year problems then it is not appealing, but this is a question for another time.

First, the system of private ownership in the means of production must be replaced with a new form of property. Rather than privately owned, either by individuals or through worker collectives, which simply mean that the workers are the stock holders, a minimal improvement, the means of production will be socially owned. Social ownership is a schemed used in Yugoslavia, most successfully in Slovenia, and eschews state or private ownership in favor of giving ownership to all citizens. All people own the bank, factory, restaurant and so on, and while private individuals manage and run these firms, all people are entitled, as owners, to the products of the means of production. The incentive for investment is, thus, retained; an inefficient use of capital goods means downturn for society in general, something all citizens have a stake in and are responsible for. An efficient use of capital goods means an increase in the total goods produced, thus an increase in the share each person receives; remember, that under a social ownership scheme everyone in society is an equal owner is all industry. This makes everyone a stockholder in the economy, giving everyone part of that incentive for business to do well.

If this system merely distributed the profits of privately run corporations back to the people of the country, it would be market socialism. However, having a privately managed corporation that runs for profit still leaves us with a method of choosing what is produced that addresses profit, not need. Thus, in order to solve this problem, it is clear that a firm cannot be privately owned or privately run. Capitalist firms are responsible to their stockholders, and corporate officers must report to a board voted in by the stockholders; the same should apply in a non-capitalist society. Firms will be held responsible to their stockholders, which are the people of the country, thus giving us democratically controlled production while maintaining the expertise of career corporate officers to run the firm.

By merely changing how the means of production is owned, socially rather than privately, we can see how this would fundamentally change how an economy is run while still retaining the simple incentives that make capitalism work. Corporate officers must do their jobs well or lose their positions and their salaries, stockholders must make sure that corporate officers are doing their jobs well or their stake in the companies will lose value and they will end with less than they started with. Of course, the actual functioning of society is not so simple, in capitalism or non-capitalism, but nonetheless there is nothing that makes private ownership any more feasible than social ownership; the latter is, after all, built on the exact same principles as the first. By giving all people an equal stake in the industry of their country, and an equal say in how the company is run and how their saving are used for new investments, you maintain the basic structure of a stock holding capitalist system without creating a class of haves and a class of have-nots.

The issue of the labor market is far more easily approached, and relies on that simple adage: ‘Greed works.’ As noted, no one works for subsistence any more, and if someone wanted to merely subsist it would not take much effort on their part. Thus, it is fair to say that those that do in fact work forty hour weeks do so not out of a need to survive but out of desire to accrue goods. If this is the case, then we can guarantee all people food, clothing, housing and medicine for free, as these are the basic needs for subsistence, and still expect them to show up to work on Monday.

We would not provide luxuries for free; a government provided diet would not include meat or imported fruit, nor would the clothing be designer label khakis. Housing would be adequate but not luxurious, and medical coverage would assure no person died for lack of treatment, but would not cover hair plugs or face lifts.

Through social ownership we remove the alienation of the worker from the means of production by giving them ownership and control over not just their workplace but all industry in the nation. Through a stipend that covers subsistence needs, we remove the life and death imperative to work, making the choice to work a true choice, not one made under duress, while maintaining the simple incentive to work: greed.

This system just described is, of course, the bare bones; one cannot sum up the exact and detailed operation of an entire economy with one fell swoop. However, we can see here that while capitalism works, other systems will work just as well with regards to achieving economic growth and production and will do better with regards to assuring equality and eliminating poverty. The principles that make social ownership and a government stipend work are the same principles that make capitalism work, and it is now clear that these principles are not mutually exclusive with the policies of economic equality and welfare programs. If it is possible, then, to create an economy that does not create poverty and can guarantee all a basic standard of living, why would we choose to maintain one that creates poverty and leaves millions without food or housing or medical care? If a system can be achieved that provides prosperity, equality and guarantees its citizens their basic needs, there is in fact a moral imperative to strive for that system and an equal imperative to tear down whichever inferior system exists in its place.

Socialist governements differ to conservative ones in one main way;

Socialists believe they can run the people's lives better than the people themselves. They believe they can better spend poeple's money and interfere more with day to day issues.

Conservatives believe that each individual should stand on their own 2 feet, the governement should be small and not interefere in people's day to day affairs.

taxes tend to be lower under conservative governements. We've had a socialist governement for the past 7 years and in that time real tax has increased from 35% to 50% with no tangible benefits or improvements

The problem with socialism, as can be seen in Great Britain, is that the more money given to people by the state the more those poeple become dependant on the state. In Britain there is a growing class of state dependents who are better off claimiung benefits than working, some are now in their 3rd generation.

A mix of socialism and conervative values are best; a state safety net for those who are unable to work for medical reasons, short term help for those made unemployed... but help should stop and not be offerred to those who blatantly abuse the system or have never contributed - including immigrants.

What happens when those claiming benefits claim more than those paying taxes can pay?

Also, this thread is most certainly in the wrong place. Off to General with ye![/QUOTE]

sorry not entirely sure how the forums work

I agree with the fact that Socialism does not work in the real world. Yeah, if humans were all angels and everyone got along and shared, it would work, but humans don't work like that. Without the competition of the capitalist system, there is no motivation for improvement or to do anything at all. Would you try to do your work well if you busted your butt for fifteen hours at your job and still get paid the same as the bum sitting around all day doing nothing? I don't think so.

Well without corperate fat cats milking the worker-whore you would be paid more for doing less, possibly even working fewer days in the week. The motivation is that what you're doing is for the better of everyone, not only yourself. It is a large change in ethos, but only becuase we're so used to the society of greed and wanting to be better than everyone else for no other reason that to rub it in their face.

Socialism is simply a slightly milder form of Communism, but it amounts to the same thing: misery. Take a look at history and all the countries that have tried such systems. Russia is still trying to recover economically from 50-70 years of Communist rule. Stalin slaughtered 10 million of his own people in the name of Communism. Mao Say Tung in China and the thousands, if not millions, he killed. In short, these political/economic systems based on sharing, universal brotherhood, etc. don't work. They never have, and, as far as I am concerned, they never will.

Those examples were not Communism or Socialist. They were dictatorships masquerading as social/communism to appease the workers. It is like using Hitler as an example as why democracy doesn't work. Also since everyone insists on implementing Leninism dictatorships are the next step. And Russia was bled dry becuase the US forced it into an arms race which destablised the globe and led to us being on the brink of nuclear war for almost fifty years.

Humans are a selfish, greedy, and independent species. That's just the way we were made.

If that was true why have we any communities at all? Why do charities even exist? Why did anyone ever 'think up' Socialism in the first place?

In my opinion, everyone could get along and not have to worry about such political nonsense if people just followed the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. But, since religion seems to have gone out the window along with moral decency, I guess that will take a long time to change the world too. *shakes head in disgust*

We've done that, and it failed. By your reasoning the thousands of deaths in the name of the Bible mean than Christianity does not work. Worse crimes have been committed in the name of Christianity than have in the name of Communism. So how would your theocratic dicatorship of the Church be better than a 'communist' dictatorship of a party?

Socialist governements differ to conservative ones in one main way;

Socialists believe they can run the people's lives better than the people themselves. They believe they can better spend poeple's money and interfere more with day to day issues.

Conservatives believe that each individual should stand on their own 2 feet, the governement should be small and not interefere in people's day to day affairs.

That's more a liberal-authoritarian arguement, where you're using authoritarian communism (Stalinism) and contrasting it with liberal capitalism (neo-conservatism). Economically, socialism is about giving the workers the means, and results, of production. Conservatism gives these means to businesses and lets them do what they like, resulting in exploitation.


taxes tend to be lower under conservative governements. We've had a socialist governement for the past 7 years and in that time real tax has increased from 35% to 50% with no tangible benefits or improvements

Sorry, but Labour are not socialists. They are the same as the Conservatives, with a different name. Taxes have risen as government bureaucracy increases. Labour continues the Conservatives policy of PFI, which costs the tax payer more than public funding would. They have taxed you becuase they let business get away without any taxation. So the money goes into the hands of a few. In the UK we have millions living below the poverty line, while in the last few years the amoutn of money held by the top 1% has increased by something like 160%. Hardly the actions of a socialist government.


The problem with socialism, as can be seen in Great Britain, is that the more money given to people by the state the more those poeple become dependant on the state. In Britain there is a growing class of state dependents who are better off claimiung benefits than working, some are now in their 3rd generation.

I don't think this is a result of socialism, it is a result of people getting lazy. If you look at other socialist countries, this hasn't happened. People are abusing the welfare system for their own benefit, which is not what socialism is about anyway.


A mix of socialism and conervative values are best; a state safety net for those who are unable to work for medical reasons, short term help for those made unemployed... but help should stop and not be offerred to those who blatantly abuse the system or have never contributed - including immigrants.

What happens when those claiming benefits claim more than those paying taxes can pay?

I'm not even going to go into the immigrant arguement - suffice to say we need them becuase the British public can't be arsed to work, hence the shortage of low-skilled workers. Oh, and some facts about asylum seekers (http://www.marxist.com/Europe/asylum_seek_truth.html). Don't believe what the right wing press tells you (perhaps slight irony in me saying that, given the source of that link... ;) ).

Your 'state safety net' is what the welfare system is meant to be. Conservative welfare (an oxymoron is ever I saw one) would be don't give them a thing - we're capitalist so you can work hard and earn money.

And if those on welfare exceed the tax payers, then the welfare system will be overturned by popular demand. Since it is 'proven' not to work we won't see it again for a few hundred years.

Which is more important? Providing a good life for your people? Or pursuing the pompous goal of being the world's "leader"?

The simple fact that they provide good life to their people disproves the statement that socialism only has the effect of "misery." I kinda wish I'd been born in Norway or Sweden, sometimes, actually.
But where do all the new medical technologies, techniques, and drugs come from? The US and other capitalistic nations. It's only after these competitive countries develope these advances can their socialist friends provide it for their citizens.

But where do all the new medical technologies, techniques, and drugs come from? The US and other capitalistic nations. It's only after these competitive countries develope these advances can their socialist friends provide it for their citizens.
Computers : invented by the military with public funds
Internet : invented by the military with public funds
The satellite : invented with public funds
The NASA : public funded.

Private sector inovations :
The anti-piracy dungles for the computers.
Throwable music.
Click to buy.

Computers : invented by the military with public funds
Internet : invented by the military with public funds
The satellite : invented with public funds
The NASA : public funded.


Computers - first micro-processor: Intel
Internet - MIT

NASA: crap

Other inventions of government: tanks, howitzers, H-Bombs, nerve gas

Private sector: Automobile, airplane, pennecillon, television, telephone, light bulb, printing press, electricity...

Computers : invented by the military with public funds
Internet : invented by the military with public funds
The satellite : invented with public funds
The NASA : public funded.

Private sector inovations :
The anti-piracy dungles for the computers.
Throwable music.
Click to buy.




Companies are encouraged to seek the next best thing, because they can make money and be rewarded for their work. The next best thing then ends up improving the customers that shop at that company.


Medicine is the best example. Computer Technology is another good one. Aerospace. Robotics, Alternative Fuel Sources.


Companies are working hard to beat each other and advancing these fields. And their work will not be for naught. Because as soon as one makes a breaktrhough, they make a crap load of money.

And then, we the people, get to use these products.

the bottom line, to borrow a capitalist expression, is this: this system is fucked.

you cannot claim capitailsm works when it leaves half the world in abject poverty (http://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/2000/english/20000328_reith.html):

About three billion people live on less than two dollars a day. In other words half of the global population do not have anything close to a decent standard of living. That means that 3 billion people live in such poverty that they can’t afford proper housing, proper health care or proper education for their children. Almost half of those people live on less than one dollar per day. That means more than a billion people not having enough to eat every day and at constant risk of malnutrition. The poor really do die young.

you cannot claim capitalism works when it cannot even provide enough food for the world (http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/04/2.19.04/AAASPimentel.html).

you cannot claim capitalism works when it concentrates ninety percent of stock ownership, and thus the profits of those firms, into the hands of ten percent of the population (http://pnews.org/art/4art/DISparity.shtml).

you cannot claim capitalism works when it squanders and profits off of water, the most basic of human needs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2943946.stm).

you cannot claim capitalism works when twenty nine thousand children die every day because it is not profitable to feed them (http://www.pwc.k12.nf.ca/cida/manifesto/devastation_loss.htm).

capitalism does not work. whatever you say about the alternatives presented, you cannot turn around and say that 'there is no alternative' and so capitalism is our only option. in any other aspect of our lives we would demand our leaders create new options, would demand we find a new way; only with the helplessness, the impotence, cultivated in our minds by our governments would we accept a world that murders through negligence and call it 'the best we can do.'

humanity is better than that. i believe the human capacity to create and innovate is infinite, and requires only that we apply the great wells of potential within us to find the solutions we need to solve the problems before us. why is it that capitalism, which prides itself on new inventions and innovations, is supported by people so unwilling to use those talents to solve inequality? we are not speaking here of an ideological objection to one person having more than another. we are talking about a system where income distribution is so disparate that most people in the world, well over half, cannot afford decent housing, healthcare or education.

why accept this? why beleive anyone who tells you this is the best we can do? why do we surrender our ability to better ourselves, to create a better world for everyone.

there is no perfect system, but there can be a more equitable system. what i see here, in those defending capitalism, is an unwillingness to admit the short comings of their chosen system, and thus an inability to fix those problems. would you say this to the mother of a child who died because they couldn't afford food? would you say this to the child who cannot go to school because their parents don't make enough money? would you dare justify the excess of the top one percent of the richest countries in the world when faced with the murderous poverty of the rest of the planet?

for the sake of humanity, i would hope not.

Well said Seocc.

All those things are not so much a result of Capitalism, as they are more the effect of Crappy Nations that don't support their people. People complain about how American companies pay people in Asia a dollar an hour, for work that should require a much higher pay.


But what they don't see is that a dollar an hour is twenty bajillion times the amount they could get elsewhere in their country. If people were being short changed, people wouldn't work these jobs. If you took these jobs away, then those people would be much worse off then they are now.

Is alot of the world fucked up? Yea. Is it going to stay that way? No.


The problem isn't Capitalism. It's human nature. If you want to fix the Third World, which most people from Industrialized Nations don't really care about, then you shouldn't force people to help poor countries. But our society should encourage those with money to be giving. And a great many of the world's wealthiest companies and people are very giving with their money.

The one thing I don't like about socialism is that it puts the government in charge of equally distributing property and wealth - I really don't trust my government with that big a responsibility

I agree with the fact that Socialism does not work in the real world.
This is not a fact. It is your opinion. My opinion is that in principle, socialism is a fantastic idea. In practice, I also believe it is viable. However, for reasons such as a capitalist hegemony and an excessively marketised world it is difficult to suggest under what circumstances socialism could work in today's world.
Humans are a selfish, greedy, and independent species. That's just the way we were made. In my opinion, everyone could get along and not have to worry about such political nonsense if people just followed the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. But, since religion seems to have gone out the window along with moral decency, I guess that will take a long time to change the world too. *shakes head in disgust*
Not everyone wants to believe in Christianity. Some people are free to believe that we weren't "made" by a God or whoever. And some people don't think humans are a "selfish, greedy, and independent species". I don't know exactly what you mean by 'independent', do you mean 'individual'? If so, there are countless examples of humans existing peacefully communally. Furthermore, I have seen many instances of humans displaying the compassion and generosity that epitomises the complete opposite of qualities of selfishness and greed. This capacity for doing good clearly exists within us, so we are not necessarily naturally predisposed to sin.

Computers - first micro-processor: Intel
Internet - MIT

NASA: crap

Other inventions of government: tanks, howitzers, H-Bombs, nerve gas

Private sector: Automobile, airplane, pennecillon, television, telephone, light bulb, printing press, electricity...First consumer of Intel : the US government.
Internet : invented in switzerland with public funds.
What's MIT? Isn't that a university? If so, who is funding it?

NASA : first man on the moon.

Automobile, airplane : subsidised by the state.
The roads : paid by the state
Telephone : subsidised by the government.
Printing press : invented in Germany so long ago, socialism was not invented at that time.
electricity : subsidised by the state.
The train : run by the state.

The one thing I don't like about socialism is that it puts the government in charge of equally distributing property and wealth - I really don't trust my government with that big a responsibilityI trust mine.

I trust mine.
And where would you live?

Pure socialism ( and communism for arguments sake only) is the nicest system in the world, the problem is no nation in the world has implemented it
the way it should be, because under pure socialism the state owns and controls everything so there can be no oposition to anything, so it creates an utomatic dictadorship.

The democratic european socialist systems are more based on social services
than in the state owning everything.

Does anyone agree with any parts of that statement.

Pure socialism ( and communism for arguments sake only) is the nicest system in the world, the problem is no nation in the world has implemented it
the way it should be, because under pure socialism the state owns and controls everything so there can be no oposition to anything, so it creates an utomatic dictadorship.

The democratic european socialist systems are more based on social services
than in the state owning everything.

Does anyone agree with any parts of that statement.


No, I don't really. If you examine Marxism (and thus socialism, which is non-violent Marxism) you will notice that what is presented to us, is a dictatorship of the Working-class. Now, granted, you may say that means there will be a dictator, but no, Marx is going for tyranny of the majority (democracy). The only way for socialism, communism, marxism, etc. to function properly is to give everything back to the people. Just as the people have shared ownership, so they have shared power. A dictatorship is the worst method if trying to implement communism, and a republic is not much better.

What you are forgetting, here, in your argument, is that for Marx, the people become the state. This may be difficult to understand, having lived under a Republic for so long, where the government is seperate from the people. So I will explain. Every single person in the country is a part of the legislature. Every single person in the country is the president. We get all the authority for ourselves. True, some people won't care, and some people will lead, but because everyone has the power, everyone will be following around an idea they believe to be good. There will always be people with more charisma, but because they are just another part of the people, the people can decide to follow them if they wish or not. Political power would be gained in an instant, and could be lost just as quickly. There would be no need for elections or legislation. No government corruption. If there was a problem, all the people would help solve it. If they decide not to help, that is their choice as well, but because everything is shared, so every problem is felt by the whole.


That's Marxist thought for ya. Now, doesn't that sound more appealing than that State-run dictatorship you were thinking of?

the bottom line, to borrow a capitalist expression, is this: this system is fucked.

you cannot claim capitailsm works when it leaves half the world in abject poverty (http://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/2000/english/20000328_reith.html):



you cannot claim capitalism works when it cannot even provide enough food for the world (http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/04/2.19.04/AAASPimentel.html).

you cannot claim capitalism works when it concentrates ninety percent of stock ownership, and thus the profits of those firms, into the hands of ten percent of the population (http://pnews.org/art/4art/DISparity.shtml).

you cannot claim capitalism works when it squanders and profits off of water, the most basic of human needs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2943946.stm).

you cannot claim capitalism works when twenty nine thousand children die every day because it is not profitable to feed them (http://www.pwc.k12.nf.ca/cida/manifesto/devastation_loss.htm).

capitalism does not work.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you about what you said. But to be fair, you are talking about one specific form of Capitalism. I'm kind of ignorant on the subject, but I believe it's called coorporate capitalism. The point, though, is that the philosophical supporters of capitalism favor the bottom line of "the more you contribute, the more rewarded you are." The problem is that the world is far far more complicated than that. I support basic capitalism, but I disapprove of American capitalism. I disapprove of the way we put profit ahead of everything, including the envirornment and ethics.

"While the state exists, there shall be no freedom"- V.I. Lenin.

There you go, lenin himself says the state is undesirable. Socialism= state dictatorship? I don't think so. The USSR, China, N.Korea, all that--- not socialist. We socialists stand for freedom, equality and a stateless, classless society. Your confusing socialism with stalinism. There are many forms of socialism-- Marxism, Trotskyism, Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Fabian Socialism, Marxist-Leninist, Chavism, Anarchism, Zapatism and so on. I myself am anarcho-communism, a synthesis of Marxism, Kropotkinism, Anarchism, eco-communism and so on.

Yes, but what do Sweden and Norway actually do?

Like, besides being Sweden and Norway? The majority of technological Breakthrough continues to come from Capitalist contries. European Health care wouldn't be half of what it was if the US was not Researching and Developing New Medicines.


Alot of European Nations just "exist" and they provide a good life to their people, and thats good. But they are not the World's Leaders.

Excuse me but Sweden is the leading country when it comes to: cellphones, internet using and accesability and high-tech naval and aerial combat. Astra Zeneca is as far as I know a swedish company, and what would you americans do without Losec? The reason to why we NOT are the world leaders is that the overall opinion is quite pacifistic and left, we haven't been in state of war since 1814. And another thing, Swedish/Norwegian population is about 15 million people, how the hell do you suppose that we would be leading the world?

I think you are way to pragmatic to discuss things like this, but ok, I can stick to your kind of arguing. You americans are fat, violent realigious zealots who have absolutely no sense at all for compassion, economics and politics.

I don't want to financially support the lifestyle of the lazy and the unemployed. Is that a problem?

I don't want to financially support the lifestyle of the lazy and the unemployed. Is that a problem?I don't want to financially support the fat ass lazy bourgeois. Is there a problem with that?

As you perhaps noted in my former sending I live in Sweden and I can't see why our system would be bad, it is a democratic system with a bit more freedom and power to the indviduals than the US. For the last forty years we have had four rightwing rulings, we have no two-partysystem and a bit different values than people in America that is the whole thing.
Me myself I am a rightwing, conservative anarchist, I don't really like the ruling of Sweden as it is now, but under any circumstances I would choose to live in Scandinavia if asked.

To stick to debate, a socialistic community would probably work, the problem is the change. Revolutions often tend to lead to dictatorships, a revolution is a temporal loss of overall control. If a socialistic society is ever to be created we have to unify and change people's thoughts about right and wrong, private property and jsutice. A good start would be to get rid of internatoional conflicts and disputes, I have actually no doubt that humans will have done that AND a revlution in let say, 200 years.

I don't want to financially support the fat ass lazy bourgeois. Is there a problem with that?

I support myself and my taxes border on the punitive.

Until you hold a job and support yourself, you have no right to perform social commentary.

I support myself and my taxes border on the punitive.

Until you hold a job and support yourself, you have no right to perform social commentary.I have a job, I earn €4000 a month. I still don't want to support the lazy fat asses spending their time selling stock shares and tanning on the beach snorting cocaïn.

BTW, my taxes are more punitive than yours, but I have a better train system and health care. I prefer getting a service for my money than just giving it away to the fat asses and increase their illegitimate power.

What we are seeing today is amazing.
Propaganda is now an industry. The bourgeois have taken control of radio and TV and brain-washing has hit the masses.

We are now seeing proletaires supporting the bourgeois, thinking the bourgeois interests are theirs. They fight for the privileges of the bourgeois, even ask for more, when it is in direct conflict with theirs.

Just amazing.

I just don't understand we you are still talking in terms of proletariate and burgeois...

What prevents the most normal of workers to start a bussiness and be rich? In all European countries (even the new democracies) such examples exist.

Not the system is the problem, but the human nature. Socialism wants to make people equal (at least economically) and, let's face it, we are not equal and we don't even want to be equal. Capitalism, on the other hand, does nothing to close the gap between the rich and the poor. However, capitalism better suits the human nature (that is always fight for more - more as in better, better living, better everything - and all throughout history better ment more money). Capitalism would be a much nicer system if the human nature would be different.

Answer me this: What prevents a CEO to buy a VW instead of a Mercedes and donate the difference to charity? Absolutely nothnig.

We want the systenm to solve the problems we face, buyt we do nothing to solve them ourselves. I'd rather be poor in capitalism and knowing that I can work my way to richness than live in socialism and knowing that whenever I want more for me, the more I'll have to pay to those who aren't capable.

I just don't understand we you are still talking in terms of proletariate and burgeois...

What prevents the most normal of workers to start a bussiness and be rich? In all European countries (even the new democracies) such examples exist.

Not the system is the problem, but the human nature. Socialism wants to make people equal (at least economically) and, let's face it, we are not equal and we don't even want to be equal. Capitalism, on the other hand, does nothing to close the gap between the rich and the poor. However, capitalism better suits the human nature (that is always fight for more - more as in better, better living, better everything - and all throughout history better ment more money). Capitalism would be a much nicer system if the human nature would be different.

Answer me this: What prevents a CEO to buy a VW instead of a Mercedes and donate the difference to charity? Absolutely nothnig.

We want the systenm to solve the problems we face, buyt we do nothing to solve them ourselves. I'd rather be poor in capitalism and knowing that I can work my way to richness than live in socialism and knowing that whenever I want more for me, the more I'll have to pay to those who aren't capable.You don't understand. In capitalism, you can't work your way to richness. You are born rich.
In socialism, work is rewarded with money. The capital on the other hand is taxed so no people are rewarded just by doing nothing and taking the money from those who work.
Look at the market places.
In ancient times, in the market you bought food, tools and stuff.
Now this market is nothing when compared to the market of capital.
The guyz are making billions just by buying and selling their stock shares.
At the end of the day, the one really working in the factory faces the salary cuts.

Thanks god, in Europe and in the US, we have social and labor laws (minimum wages, ban on child labor, free health care and everything).
In the third world, they experience wild capitalism with no labor law and no social law, and guess what? They starve!

And yet there are people behind their computer trying to explain the benefit of capitalism, saying that any social progress is harmful and that regulations are evil. It makes sense to them because they are brain-washed and they don't know.

Excuse me but Sweden is the leading country when it comes to: cellphones, internet using and accesability and high-tech naval and aerial combat. Astra Zeneca is as far as I know a swedish company, and what would you americans do without Losec? The reason to why we NOT are the world leaders is that the overall opinion is quite pacifistic and left, we haven't been in state of war since 1814. And another thing, Swedish/Norwegian population is about 15 million people, how the hell do you suppose that we would be leading the world?

I think you are way to pragmatic to discuss things like this, but ok, I can stick to your kind of arguing. You americans are fat, violent realigious zealots who have absolutely no sense at all for compassion, economics and politics.

not to mention ikea. ikea is owned by a swedish guy, who is apparantly the richest person in the world...

To me, Socialism is what hampers society in the current world. Most socialist nations are known for a poor economy meaning a worse standard of living. Socialism cannot contend with Capitalism in the modern world. Several hundred years ago, Socialism would have been acceptable due to the fact that people had no civil rights. It is a socioeconomic structure created pre-20th Century and was inevitably never perfected since the more appealing Capitalism came into play, allowing civil rights, a free economy, and makes room for a stable Liberally Democratic government.
To me, though, the most successful socioeconomic and political structure was Feudalism. It outlasted every other, and has a 750-year headstart on Capitalist Liberal Democracy. Lets face it - it worked. But it doesn't work for the times, and that's why Capitalism is indefinitely the best way for any nation to go.

To me, Socialism is what hampers society in the current world. Most socialist nations are known for a poor economy meaning a worse standard of living. Socialism cannot contend with Capitalism in the modern world. Several hundred years ago, Socialism would have been acceptable due to the fact that people had no civil rights. It is a socioeconomic structure created pre-20th Century and was inevitably never perfected since the more appealing Capitalism came into play, allowing civil rights, a free economy, and makes room for a stable Liberally Democratic government.
To me, though, the most successful socioeconomic and political structure was Feudalism. It outlasted every other, and has a 750-year headstart on Capitalist Liberal Democracy. Lets face it - it worked. But it doesn't work for the times, and that's why Capitalism is indefinitely the best way for any nation to go.


what the hell are you talking about?

for 10 years in a row canada was #1 in terms of standard of living and we're a pretty socialist country... now we're #3 or something like that and sweden and norway are numbers one and two and they're wonderfully socialist countries. the standard of living is quite high in socialist countries.

You don't understand. In capitalism, you can't work your way to richness. You are born rich.
Let me se if I get it right: take the simple story of Bill Gates who worked in a garage 30 years ago. Are you saying this is just a nice story made up by evil capitalist to fool the suckers?

Take the example of Ion Tiriac (maybe you don't no who he is) or the guys who started Yahoo or the guys who started Google and all those people who had some great ideas and become rich.


In socialism, work is rewarded with money.

So is in capitalism


In ancient times, in the market you bought food, tools and stuff.
Now this market is nothing when compared to the market of capital.
The guyz are making billions just by buying and selling their stock shares.
At the end of the day, the one really working in the factory faces the salary cuts.

Stock is a commodity. When you buy stock you buy a part of what the company owns, so you don't just buy air.


Thanks god, in Europe and in the US, we have social and labor laws (minimum wages, ban on child labor, free health care and everything).
In the third world, they experience wild capitalism with no labor law and no social law, and guess what? They starve!

Capitalism isn't perfect. Nor is socialism. But capitalism will always better address the human nature of fighting fore more (not in terms of greed, but in terms of wanting a better live).


And yet there are people behind their computer trying to explain the benefit of capitalism, saying that any social progress is harmful and that regulations are evil. It makes sense to them because they are brain-washed and they don't know.
I hope this argument doesn't fall in the category "Everyone who has more than a chicken's brain can see how evil capitalism is".

It's quite obvious to me that the best form of government is a dictatorship if you are the dictator.
So so true.......

Both a pure capitalist and a pure socialist government WILL FAIL. This is due to human nature. Few people REALLY want to be fair on everything, and socialism will fail when people decide not to follow the rules. Capitalism will fail for the same reason-in theroy, a totally free market will only bring about competition, giving buisnesses a reason to bring out cheaper and better goods. In reality, buisness ethics teaches to get to the top by whatever means neccisary; you'll have monopolys and the robber-barons of old.

In my eyes, places such as Canada are best; a mix of BOTH.

Let me se if I get it right: take the simple story of Bill Gates who worked in a garage 30 years ago. Are you saying this is just a nice story made up by evil capitalist to fool the suckers?

Just to add, Bill gates was at the PERFECT place at the PERFECT time. There will never be another Bill Gates, because the circumstances surrounding him were absolutly top notch.

Oh, and didn't he just...BUY the operating system :p? Getting rich of the work of others...hmmmmm...;)

You don't understand. In capitalism, you can't work your way to richness. You are born rich.
That's just ridiculous. The majority of people who are rich/comfortable in the US and other capitalist nations EARNED their money. Take my family as an example. My great-grandparents immigrated here during the 20s and 30s from Italy and Ireland. They were lower working class. My great-grandfather from Ireland was a butcher before becoming a cop. Through hard work and responsibility their kids (my grandparents) got slightly more successful jobs. My grandfather worked his entire life for the phone company.
Then come my parents. Through hard work and responsibility, my dad put himself through college, got a degree in physics, and entered the military. After 22 years he's just retired and gotten a job with Raytheon down in Texas. He's pulling a six figure income that's well deserved. I'm damn proud of him, and pleased to be his son.
Dad is not one of the "lucky few" as you socialists like to say. He's one of the millions of men and women in the USA who have pulled themselves up into successful, happy, comfortable lives.

I have a job, I earn €4000 a month. I still don't want to support the lazy fat asses spending their time selling stock shares and tanning on the beach snorting cocaïn.


Shares are really only sold by investment bankers during the IPO - when the company goes public.

The rest of the "selling" is done by the actual shareholders. Brokers only take a fee for completing the transaction. They also provide information on the company's condition and prospects, adding transparency to the market.

People are only getting rich when they become owners of a successful business (eg, when they create more wealth). What is wrong with that?

Furthermore, by snorting cocaine, they are helping the economies of south america.

Let me se if I get it right: take the simple story of Bill Gates who worked in a garage 30 years ago. Are you saying this is just a nice story made up by evil capitalist to fool the suckers?
Bill Gates... worked ... in a garage?
lol
Bill Gates had $50 000 to buy the QDOS and sold it $1 billion to IBM.
He was born with $50 000. And where did he live? Certainly not in Angola.

Take the example of Ion Tiriac (maybe you don't no who he is) or the guys who started Yahoo or the guys who started Google and all those people who had some great ideas and become rich.
They both had the capital from the start.

So is in capitalism
It is, I was saying that because you thought it was not in socialism.
The difference is that work is rewarded fully, whereas in capitalism work is half rewarded and capital is half rewarded.
Actually I thought you thought that in socialism everybody was paid the same when in fact, socialism is about rewarding the workers instead of the capital.

Stock is a commodity. When you buy stock you buy a part of what the company owns, so you don't just buy air.
And what's the point?
That's what I was explaining. You buy a factory and the workers in that factory will work for you while you tan on the beach and snort cocaïn. In the mean time, we will have to cut their salary so you can snort cocaïn.
Why should they share the value of their work with the owners? The owners don't work.
Do you think Bill Gates worked as much as 1 million workers? NO. He worked a little and the rest is what his capital gave him, because capital is more rewarded than work

Capitalism isn't perfect. Nor is socialism. But capitalism will always better address the human nature of fighting fore more (not in terms of greed, but in terms of wanting a better live).
Sure capitalism isn't perfect. It is just a step in human history. It will change and the next step is socialism.

I hope this argument doesn't fall in the category "Everyone who has more than a chicken's brain can see how evil capitalism is".
capitalism is not evil, but it is not the end of history either. We should not think it can't evolve for the better.

That's just ridiculous. The majority of people who are rich/comfortable in the US and other capitalist nations EARNED their money. Take my family as an example. My great-grandparents immigrated here during the 20s and 30s from Italy and Ireland. They were lower working class. My great-grandfather from Ireland was a butcher before becoming a cop. Through hard work and responsibility their kids (my grandparents) got slightly more successful jobs. My grandfather worked his entire life for the phone company.
Then come my parents. Through hard work and responsibility, my dad put himself through college, got a degree in physics, and entered the military. After 22 years he's just retired and gotten a job with Raytheon down in Texas. He's pulling a six figure income that's well deserved. I'm damn proud of him, and pleased to be his son.
Dad is not one of the "lucky few" as you socialists like to say. He's one of the millions of men and women in the USA who have pulled themselves up into successful, happy, comfortable lives.This is the past. those people worked because there was nothing. Now they've built empires and their children aren't working anymore.

Shares are really only sold by investment bankers during the IPO - when the company goes public.

The rest of the "selling" is done by the actual shareholders. Brokers only take a fee for completing the transaction. They also provide information on the company's condition and prospects, adding transparency to the market.

People are only getting rich when they become owners of a successful business (eg, when they create more wealth). What is wrong with that?

Furthermore, by snorting cocaine, they are helping the economies of south america.
What is wrong with that : they consume the wealth of the workers.
They buy a successful business. The business is successful because the workers there are getting their ass at work and doing one hell of a job. Those are the people who should be rewarded. Instead, their salary is cut because you take the profit of their work.

BTW : you confuse economy and finance.

capitalism is not evil, but it is not the end of history either. We should not think it can't evolve for the better.

If you are such a big fan of Mr. Marx, then you must know that we cannot advance this process. Things will happen when they must happen.

On the other hand, Mr. Marx saved capitalism once... and it seems that his folowers are likely to save it again.

As for the example of the big factory owner who snort cocaine while workers are working in the factory, I have the following question: If I am smart ehough to set up a bussiness and then hire somebody able to run it smoothly, why should I not be entitled to the money it makes? The governements make sure that I cannot truly abuse my workers and since we are in a competitive market, I won't be so stupid as to bankrupt my bussiness by taking all the money and buy cocaine.

"Brain-work" does create value. It's true that you can work less and be better paid if you use your brain instead of your muscles, but I don't see a problem there.

And Ion Tiriac didn't have the capital. More, you can apply for a loan and get your capital.

Socialism can only work if people trust their government.
People can only trust their government if their government is trustworthy.
Capitalist governments aren't trustworthy.

Social inertia is a wonderfull thing.

Governments can do nothing to make socialism work. Socialism only works whrn people won't be envy. Socialism works with machines, not with humans.

Capitalism is a system that evolved out of economic realities, and, whatever you may say, it improved over time. Socialism only existed in the mind of the thinkers. And whenever governemnts tried to put it in practice, they had to install totalitarism first.

For socialism to work it would mean that people actually want to be equal, which they don't. There are upsides and down sides to both systems, but, as I said before, capitalism suits human nature much better.

For socialism to work it would mean that people actually want to be equal, which they don't.
this is a good point. i personally don't believe people are equal in nature, and therefore can never (and should never) be equal in success. i'm all for giving people equal legal rights, but trying to make everyone equal in status, wealth, comfort, and happiness is not only absurd but impossible.

because of people like me, socialism will not work :).

the bottom line, to borrow a capitalist expression, is this: this system is fucked.

you cannot claim capitailsm works when it leaves half the world in abject poverty (http://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/2000/english/20000328_reith.html):



you cannot claim capitalism works when it cannot even provide enough food for the world (http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/04/2.19.04/AAASPimentel.html).

you cannot claim capitalism works when it concentrates ninety percent of stock ownership, and thus the profits of those firms, into the hands of ten percent of the population (http://pnews.org/art/4art/DISparity.shtml).

you cannot claim capitalism works when it squanders and profits off of water, the most basic of human needs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2943946.stm).

you cannot claim capitalism works when twenty nine thousand children die every day because it is not profitable to feed them (http://www.pwc.k12.nf.ca/cida/manifesto/devastation_loss.htm).



This is an asinine arguement. When the world is united under one capitalist government and we still have these problems, you can make this arguement... Unitl then, how can you? A large part of the world isn't capitalist... So why don't they fix the problems?

For socialism to work it would mean that people actually want to be equal, which they don't.

... Or we somehow get to the point where everyone's wants amd needs can be met. Like a Star Trek universe. Until then, there will always be haves and have-nots.

You don't understand. In capitalism, you can't work your way to richness. You are born rich.
In socialism, work is rewarded with money. The capital on the other hand is taxed so no people are rewarded just by doing nothing and taking the money from those who work.
Look at the market places.
In ancient times, in the market you bought food, tools and stuff.
Now this market is nothing when compared to the market of capital.
The guyz are making billions just by buying and selling their stock shares.
At the end of the day, the one really working in the factory faces the salary cuts.

Bill Gates was not born rich. And money is only earned by owning capital when the owner puts it at risk. There is no guarantee that ANY investment will increase or even retain its value. It might be difficult for someone born poor to become rich, but it's very easy for someone born rich to become poor. The only reliable way to ensure profit, is by means of force, usually by means of government. This is not capitalism in a strict market sense. This is mercantilism, or worse: facism.


Thanks god, in Europe and in the US, we have social and labor laws (minimum wages, ban on child labor, free health care and everything).
In the third world, they experience wild capitalism with no labor law and no social law, and guess what? They starve!


Labor laws restrict BOTH sides from freely conducting buisness that they feel benefits them the best. Third world nations are generally thugocracies, where the thugs in charge are in-turn controlled, or at least exploited by global banking conglomerates, the World Bank and IMF. That's an extreme simplification, but that's the gist.


And yet there are people behind their computer trying to explain the benefit of capitalism, saying that any social progress is harmful and that regulations are evil. It makes sense to them because they are brain-washed and they don't know.

Nobody says social progress is bad, they just don't agree with what constitutes progress. People disagree with you. Imagine that.

My provincial government is Socialist and incredibly useless. They are all very nice people and that seems to be enough to get you elected where I live. Lately, though, they have been running up the deficit, raising taxes and just terrible fiscal mismanagement. All their MLAs are former union boses and therefore favour the unions over all else. By the way, who ever said you can't work your way to riches, my uncle used to live on a tent by a river after he left this province because he couldn't even afford an appartment. Now he has a $500 000 home overlooking the city he lives in, a $500 000 cabin in the Mountains, several brand new vehicles and 1 purepbread dog which was at least $1 000 dollars US. Plus, a 350 horsepower motor on his boat and 2 seados. You how he got all that? Got into construction at the right time, began to move up the ranks and now runs his own company. Thats capitalism at work and thats exactly why he left my province, because there are no opportunities.

Socialism is more or less being forced to be free and equal. Republic or any other kind of Democracy lets you truly be free. If you work hard, you get more respect, money, and overall a greater time in life. If your some pothead that sits at home and hits up every night, your a loser in life. Democracy lets you determine your own fate, with rewards of being good, and nothing with being bad. Basically Democracy = Karma System..in a certain matter of speaking.

More like inverted karma, I think. After all, karma teaches that wealth is unwholesome, as it will lead to desire, craving and thus suffering. I think that raises a point that a lot of left-wing people pick up on. The richest people in the world are not the cleverest or the most hard-working. People who are really clever often see that wealth is something that only brings a shallow, fleeting pleasure and they tend to focus themselves on other things, like research into whatever their subject is or one of the arts. This is where the need for subsidies needs to come in for things like education, the arts, scientific research, etc. which are things that would be undervalued by most people in the marketplace, yet are very important to progress in terms of both knowledge and standard of living [seeing as science and technology allow us to have more leisure].

As for the example of the big factory owner who snort cocaine while workers are working in the factory, I have the following question: If I am smart ehough to set up a bussiness and then hire somebody able to run it smoothly, why should I not be entitled to the money it makes? The governements make sure that I cannot truly abuse my workers and since we are in a competitive market, I won't be so stupid as to bankrupt my bussiness by taking all the money and buy cocaine.

"Brain-work" does create value. It's true that you can work less and be better paid if you use your brain instead of your muscles, but I don't see a problem there.
You don't see the problem?
You assume that brain-work does create value. It is not the case. Brain work CAN create value, it doesn't mean it DOES create value.
If you are smart enough to abuse the system, then good for you, but bad for us.
You could as well argue that Saddam Hussein was rich because he was smart enough to gaz the rebels.
Was that clever? Sure. Did that create any value? HELL NO. He destroyed value on the contrary. This is the same with capitalists "smart enough" to snort cocaïn while the others are working. They don't create value, whatever you say, they are parasites.

And Ion Tiriac didn't have the capital. More, you can apply for a loan and get your capital.
You can extort capital, but you can't work your way to have it. Working is not rewarded. You have to abuse the system to have it. Socialism is about rewarding what is of value and truly rewardable. On the other hand, capitalism rewards thiefs, criminals and dictators.

this is a good point. i personally don't believe people are equal in nature, and therefore can never (and should never) be equal in success. i'm all for giving people equal legal rights, but trying to make everyone equal in status, wealth, comfort, and happiness is not only absurd but impossible.

because of people like me, socialism will not work :).
Socialism is about equal rights. Who ever said socialism was about giving the same salary to everybody is a McCarthyist.
You should educate yourself about socialism. It is not an utopia.

This is an asinine arguement. When the world is united under one capitalist government and we still have these problems, you can make this arguement... Unitl then, how can you? A large part of the world isn't capitalist... So why don't they fix the problems?The part of the world were there are the most problems are the most capitalist. They have no labor law, no social education, no tax on the capital.
You can see in the world today that the most successful countries are the one where there is the most social progress.

Bill Gates was not born rich. And money is only earned by owning capital when the owner puts it at risk. There is no guarantee that ANY investment will increase or even retain its value. It might be difficult for someone born poor to become rich, but it's very easy for someone born rich to become poor. The only reliable way to ensure profit, is by means of force, usually by means of government. This is not capitalism in a strict market sense. This is mercantilism, or worse: facism.
You fool yourself. There is no risk when you invest the capital. You buy something that will create wealth. Unless you are the most unlucky person in the world, the billions you invest will create wealth.
The only people who take risks are the small little traders who invest $5000. They are raped by the big investors because they don't have enough capital.
Bill Gates didn't work for his money.

Labor laws restrict BOTH sides from freely conducting buisness that they feel benefits them the best. Third world nations are generally thugocracies, where the thugs in charge are in-turn controlled, or at least exploited by global banking conglomerates, the World Bank and IMF. That's an extreme simplification, but that's the gist.
The World Bank and the IMF are controlled by the big corporations anyway.

Nobody says social progress is bad, they just don't agree with what constitutes progress. People disagree with you. Imagine that.
People here do not disagree with me. They just are not educated.
Having a different opinion is OK, so long as it is an informed opinion.

My provincial government is Socialist and incredibly useless. They are all very nice people and that seems to be enough to get you elected where I live. Lately, though, they have been running up the deficit, raising taxes and just terrible fiscal mismanagement. All their MLAs are former union boses and therefore favour the unions over all else. By the way, who ever said you can't work your way to riches, my uncle used to live on a tent by a river after he left this province because he couldn't even afford an appartment. Now he has a $500 000 home overlooking the city he lives in, a $500 000 cabin in the Mountains, several brand new vehicles and 1 purepbread dog which was at least $1 000 dollars US. Plus, a 350 horsepower motor on his boat and 2 seados. You how he got all that? Got into construction at the right time, began to move up the ranks and now runs his own company. Thats capitalism at work and thats exactly why he left my province, because there are no opportunities.Most of his money comes from the work of others. It's not all his own work. You can always extort you way to richness.

You fool yourself. There is no risk when you invest the capital. You buy something that will create wealth. Unless you are the most unlucky person in the world, the billions you invest will create wealth.
The only people who take risks are the small little traders who invest $5000. They are raped by the big investors because they don't have enough capital.
Bill Gates didn't work for his money.


There is always risk. I don't know how you could possibly believe otherwise. Look at all the venture capitalists who lost millions in the .com bubble bust. As for Bill Gates, where did his money come from if he didn't earn it?


The World Bank and the IMF are controlled by the big corporations anyway.

People here do not disagree with me. They just are not educated.
Having a different opinion is OK, so long as it is an informed opinion.

For the record, I disagree with you.

There is always risk. I don't know how you could possibly believe otherwise. Look at all the venture capitalists who lost millions in the .com bubble bust. As for Bill Gates, where did his money come from if he didn't earn it?
OK there is a risk. Every 3 billion they make, they loose perhaps 1000 bucks in a bad investment.
Bill Gates's money comes from the workers at Microsoft.

For the record, I disagree with you.
It is ok, so long as you don't say stupid things like "capitalism is democracy" or "socialism is homosexuality". If you are informed and base your opinion on science rather than propaganda, I respect your opinion.

The part of the world were there are the most problems are the most capitalist. They have no labor law, no social education, no tax on the capital.
You can see in the world today that the most successful countries are the one where there is the most social progress.

If by "capitalist" you mean free market (please in future use a more specific word since Capitalism means lots of things to lots of people) here are the 10 most "capitalist" countries according to the heritage foundation's "index of economic freedom" (please note the word "freedom" since socialism is a form of slavery)

Hong Kong
Singapore
New Zealand
Luxembourg
Ireland
Estonia
United Kingdom
Denmark
Switzerland
United States

All are either very prosperous or becoming so in the case of Estonia.

By contrast here are the least economically free.

Tajikistan
Venezuela
Iran
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
Laos
Burma
Zimbabwe
Libya
Korea, North

are these the ones with "the most social progress"?

Your contention really doesn't seem to hold water now, does it?

Incindently, your native France ranks just below Armenia and the United Arab Emirates and just above Belize, possibly explaining it's dismal economy and general decline socially and culturally. (not an insult, just an observation)

Edit: forgot to post the link

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.html

If by "capitalist" you mean free market (please in future use a more specific word since Capitalism means lots of things to lots of people) here are the 10 most "capitalist" countries according to the heritage foundation's "index of economic freedom" (please note the word "freedom" since socialism is a form of slavery)

Hong Kong
Singapore
New Zealand
Luxembourg
Ireland
Estonia
United Kingdom
Denmark
Switzerland
United States

All are either very prosperous or becoming so in the case of Estonia.

By contrast here are the least economically free.

Tajikistan
Venezuela
Iran
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
Laos
Burma
Zimbabwe
Libya
Korea, North

are these the ones with "the most social progress"?

Your contention really doesn't seem to hold water now, does it?

Incindently, your native France ranks just below Armenia and the United Arab Emirates and just above Belize, possibly explaining it's dismal economy and general decline socially and culturally. (not an insult, just an observation)

Edit: forgot to post the link

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.htmlEconomic freedom is not capitalism.
Capitalism is private ownership of the capital. You can replace this word in every posts made by me.

FYI :
The UK is socialist
France is conservative

For instance :
In luxembourg, the roads are free.
In France, you pay for the highway.

-> France is more capitalist than luxembourg in this area.

Economic freedom is not capitalism.
Fine, don't use that word then 'cause you're confusing everyone.

Capitalism is private ownership of the capital. You can replace this word in every posts made by me.
Fine, but the point remains that free market societies are doing best, in contrast to what you're trying to imply.

FYI :
The UK is socialist
France is conservative
You can use those words however you want but you're just confusing me now. UK is more free market than France by a long shot (although not very free market in absolute terms) and doing much better, that's the relevant point.

If by "capitalist" you mean free market (please in future use a more specific word since Capitalism means lots of things to lots of people) here are the 10 most "capitalist" countries according to the heritage foundation's "index of economic freedom" (please note the word "freedom" since socialism is a form of slavery)

Hong Kong
Singapore
New Zealand
Luxembourg
Ireland
Estonia
United Kingdom
Denmark
Switzerland
United States

All are either very prosperous or becoming so in the case of Estonia.

By contrast here are the least economically free.

Tajikistan
Venezuela
Iran
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
Laos
Burma
Zimbabwe
Libya
Korea, North

are these the ones with "the most social progress"?

Your contention really doesn't seem to hold water now, does it?

Incindently, your native France ranks just below Armenia and the United Arab Emirates and just above Belize, possibly explaining it's dismal economy and general decline socially and culturally. (not an insult, just an observation)

Edit: forgot to post the link

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.html

Tajikistan
Venezuela
Iran
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
Laos
Burma
Zimbabwe
Libya
Korea, North

most of these nations are economically free :rolleyes:

only laos
and north korea aren't...

For instance :
In luxembourg, the roads are free.
In France, you pay for the highway.

-> France is more capitalist than luxembourg in this area.
So? Overall France is much less free market than Luxembourg. And can I take it in France the highways are still operated by the state?

Fine, don't use that word then 'cause you're confusing everyone.

Fine, but the point remains that free market societies are doing best, in contrast to what you're trying to imply.

You can use those words however you want but you're just confusing me now. UK is more free market than France by a long shot (although not very free market in absolute terms) and doing much better, that's the relevant point.


1. uhm jeah...
2. thats beceause every socialist nation till now started with socialism as a 3rd or 2nd world nation
3. UK and france are social democratic not socialist or capitalist

Tajikistan
Venezuela
Iran
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
Laos
Burma
Zimbabwe
Libya
Korea, North

most of these nations are economically free :rolleyes:

only laos
and north korea....
Right, I suppose you consider the nationilastion of farm land as an important tool of the free market?

Tajikistan
Venezuela
Iran
Uzbekistan
Turkmenistan
Laos
Burma
Zimbabwe
Libya
Korea, North

most of these nations are economically free :rolleyes:

only laos
and north korea....
Economic freedom would be security of property rights, low (or no) taxes and few (or no) regulations. Exactly which of these countries is economically free? I'm just quoting the website here.

Right, I suppose you consider the nationilastion of farm land as an important tool of the free market?

they did that beceause of the poverty created by capitalism...

For instance :
In luxembourg, the roads are free.
In France, you pay for the highway.

-> France is more capitalist than luxembourg in this area.
I thought that France tolled the roads because they didn't have road tax like Britain.

Economic freedom would be security of property rights, low (or no) taxes and few (or no) regulations. Exactly which of these countries is economically free? I'm just quoting the website here.
if ur right about that than this list:
Hong Kong
Singapore
New Zealand
Luxembourg
Ireland
Estonia
United Kingdom
Denmark
Switzerland
United States

isn't correct

they did that beceause of the poverty created by capitalism...
Dammit, I forgot about the bumper harvest they had this year.

Dammit, I forgot about the bumper harvest they had this year.
i guess bumper means bad
so if thats the case
a bad harvest doesn't mean a bad system

Fine, don't use that word then 'cause you're confusing everyone.Everyone's confused from the start since McCarthy.

Fine, but the point remains that free market societies are doing best, in contrast to what you're trying to imply.
We agree. I'm for the free market, against the private ownership of capital.

You can use those words however you want but you're just confusing me now. UK is more free market than France by a long shot (although not very free market in absolute terms) and doing much better, that's the relevant point.
It does, except in the areas where there is private ownership, for instance the train system.

So? Overall France is much less free market than Luxembourg. And can I take it in France the highways are still operated by the state?
This is the other way around. Read again please.
In France the highways are privately owned. In Luxembourg, they are state owned.

i guess bumper means bad
so if thats the case
a bad harvest doesn't mean a bad system
Bumper means about average.


"A bad harvest doesn't mean a bad system"

True, there has been a drought. But Mugabe has exacerbated the problem by evicting all the skilled farmers. Somehow I think that this may be because of the bad system.

PS. Are you actually trying to defend Mugabe?

Right, I suppose you consider the nationilastion of farm land as an important tool of the free market?I do.

I do.
How so.

And I just realised I made a horrible typo. Ho hum.

I thought that France tolled the roads because they didn't have road tax like Britain.
I though that was what I said. Wasn't that clear?

Everyone's confused from the start since McCarthy.
We agree. I'm for the free market, against the private ownership of capital.

It does, except in the areas where there is private ownership, for instance the train system.
you use private ownership in the wrong terms
private ownership measn free market

but in the netherlands they gave the trains from state ownership to private ownership and it sucks
like a lot of things they privatized

they did that beceause of the poverty created by capitalism...
No, they did it as a political tactic under the excuse that it was seized by imperialist militaries (which is of course a large socialist industry).

Bumper means about average.


"A bad harvest doesn't mean a bad system"

True, there has been a drought. But Mugabe has exacerbated the problem by evicting all the skilled farmers. Somehow I think that this may be because of the bad system.

PS. Are you actually trying to defend Mugabe?
no i'm not trying to defend him, but i'm saying that making the farms state-property isn't really a bad idea

I though that was what I said. Wasn't that clear?
Just I thought thtat the roads were state owned and paid for by tolls rather then tax, rather then being privately owned.

if ur right about that than this list:
Hong Kong
Singapore
New Zealand
Luxembourg
Ireland
Estonia
United Kingdom
Denmark
Switzerland
United States

isn't correct
Why?

How so.

And I just realised I made a horrible typo. Ho hum.If you nationalize the farms or subsidize them, it creates opportunities for the free market.
If they remain private, only those who own them can operate them -> the opportunities are reduced -> the market is less free.

lets justv say... denmark
low taxes... no
no government interferance... uhm, they have government interferance
and i forgot the thirth point

no i'm not trying to defend him, but i'm saying that making the farms state-property isn't really a bad idea
?How?

You take away all incentive. And those with the most to lose (or the most skillful) will jump ship and lower yeild.

Farming isn't as simple as sowing and reaping.

We agree. I'm for the free market, against the private ownership of capital.
Really? I'm for eating but against the consumption of food.

It does, except in the areas where there is private ownership, for instance the train system.
You socialists are hilarious.

Just I thought thtat the roads were state owned and paid for by tolls rather then tax, rather then being privately owned.No they're privately owned.

If you nationalize the farms or subsidize them, it creates opportunities for the free market.
If they remain private, only those who own them can operate them -> the opportunities are reduced -> the market is less free.
nationalizing would make it a less free market
but i think it will make a better one
beceause there isn't uhm i forgot the english word
competition thats it
between the farms

If you nationalize the farms or subsidize them, it creates opportunities for the free market.
If they remain private, only those who own them can operate them -> the opportunities are reduced -> the market is less free.
How does nationalizing an industry make it more free?

I kinda get the subsidising bit though.

but in the netherlands they gave the trains from state ownership to private ownership and it sucks
like a lot of things they privatized
I looked into this a bit. They seperated ownership of tracks and trains, a profoundly stupid idea. Britain did the same and this, combined with excessive regulation, caused chaos. Japan, on the other hand, has private trains that work because they didn't make this mistake that only a politician would ever make (never a good businessman).

?How?

You take away all incentive. And those with the most to lose (or the most skillful) will jump ship and lower yeild.

Farming isn't as simple as sowing and reaping.
lol, i hae been on a farm :D

they have an incentive in zimbadwe,
give the poor food
but even in a rich country they have cause there's still supervision
and they can get fired

PS. plan-economy

lets justv say... denmark
low taxes... no
no government interferance... uhm, they have government interferance
and i forgot the thirth point
I think, I'm not sure though, that Denmark has little regulation and fairly open trade policy, despite their high taxes etc, which pulls them up.

nationalizing would make it a less free market
but i think it will make a better one
beceause there isn't uhm i forgot the english word
competition thats it
between the farms
Because having one man in control of everything and shooting anyone who step foot on the land is freedom?

Because having one man in control of everything and shooting anyone who step foot on the land is freedom?
yes, if you say he cant shoot or control he's not free anymore...
think about it
(not that i agree with free market though)

I kinda get the subsidising bit though.
Subsidised EU agriculture causes ~ 1 death every 11 seconds in the so-called 3rd world. Don't know if you are defending this or not.

lol, i hae been on a farm :D

ditto

they have an incentive in zimbadwe,
You say incentive, I say coercion.
give the poor food
How is that an incentive?

Anyway, higher yeild=more food available.
Famine=no food.

Only Mugabe supporters are really getting fed. The poor aren't

but even in a rich country they have cause there's still supervision
and they can get fired
:confused:
PS. plan-economy

Yes, because politicians are the most skilled people to do this.

Subsidised EU agriculture causes ~ 1 death every 11 seconds in the so-called 3rd world. Don't know if you are defending this or not.
I'm not.

Just trying to bypass it. Debating the CAP isn't my idea of fun.

How does nationalizing an industry make it more free?

I kinda get the subsidising bit though.Because when you nationalize something, everybody does own it. It means that everybody is more free to operate it.
You can have competition and the best farmer can be the most rewarded.
On the other hand when it is private, only the owner is allowed to operate this is noe freedom.

ditto


You say incentive, I say coercion.

How is that an incentive?

Anyway, higher yeild=more food available.
Famine=no food.

Only Mugabe supporters are really getting fed. The poor aren't


:confused:
PS. plan-economy[/QUOTE]
it was all about the ps. :D
i'm tired and sick so i'm not good in discussions at the moment
maybe its a lame excuse but my brains aren't functioning briliant right now

they have an incentive in zimbadwe,
give the poor food
Incentive is something that makes it in your interest, something that benefits you, like the profit incentive on a free market. "Feeding the poor" is a weak incentive if it is one at all, as can be seen by the starving poor in Zimbabwe.

Because when you nationalize something, everybody does own it. It means that everybody is more free to operate it.
You can have competition and the best farmer can be the most rewarded.
On the other hand when it is private, only the owner is allowed to operate this is noe freedom.
actually you can't work in a farm (maybe for free) in a nationalized farm
only if you actually work at that place and are assigned to the farm, you can work there...

Incentive is something that makes it in your interest, something that benefits you, like the profit incentive on a free market. "Feeding the poor" is a weak incentive if it is one at all, as can be seen by the starving poor in Zimbabwe.
if your entire nation is starving to dead
wouldn't it even cross your mind to do something about it?

Because when you nationalize something, everybody does own it. It means that everybody is more free to operate it.
You really think that would happen?
You can have competition and the best farmer can be the most rewarded.
On the other hand when it is private, only the owner is allowed to operate this is noe freedom.
Well, you can buy the farm.

You may as well nationalise computers. because if it is private only the owner can use it.

it was all about the ps.
answered ;)

yes, if you say he cant shoot or control he's not free anymore...
think about it
(not that i agree with free market though)You think freedom for one man is freedom?
Hell NO! Freedom stops where the freedom of others starts.
A society is free when most people have the most freedom.
By that argument, you could say North Korea is the most free country because the ruler can kill anybody. Hell NO! It is not free because one man is free.

Because when you nationalize something, everybody does own it. It means that everybody is more free to operate it.
You can have competition and the best farmer can be the most rewarded.
On the other hand when it is private, only the owner is allowed to operate this is noe freedom.
Oh great. I'll just fly in my new fighter jet to holiday in my new home in the houses of parliament then, shall I? You're just talking sh*te now, there's no arguing with this level of wrongness.

if your entire nation is starving to dead
wouldn't it even cross your mind to do something about it?
Yes, reverse the rascist legitslation and privatise the farm land.

if your entire nation is starving to dead
wouldn't it even cross your mind to do something about it?
Apparantly it didn't because they are starving to death. It's a very weak incentive. Please tell me you understand this! An incentive is something that benefits ME. Them not starving doesn't benefit ME much at all, except that I'll have more company. I might do it out of pity or concern but it is NOT an INCENTIVE.

actually you can't work in a farm (maybe for free) in a nationalized farm
only if you actually work at that place and are assigned to the farm, you can work there...Of course you can!
Can't you be a teacher?
You have to pass an exam, but you can if you work enough.

You think freedom for one man is freedom?
Hell NO! Freedom stops where the freedom of others starts.
A society is free when most people have the most freedom.
By that argument, you could say North Korea is the most free country because the ruler can kill anybody. Hell NO! It is not free because one man is free.
but other man have the right to shoot that man back...
in north korea only 1 man can kill anybody...
the only thing i say is that anarchy is complete freedom (i'm no anarchist)
so what you said was freedom

Yes, but what do Sweden and Norway actually do?

Like, besides being Sweden and Norway? The majority of technological Breakthrough continues to come from Capitalist contries. European Health care wouldn't be half of what it was if the US was not Researching and Developing New Medicines.


Alot of European Nations just "exist" and they provide a good life to their people, and thats good. But they are not the World's Leaders.

Aah i just had to comment on this part:
I live in demark and if you ever see any diabetics say hello to them from denmark. We are leading in research and developement of insulin and other experimental ways of treating people with diabetis.
No we are not world leaders. But we lead in certain areas.

Agreed capitalism offers equality: Neither poor or rich are allowed to sleep under bridges
Agreed capitalism offers freedom: Both poor and rich are allowed to buy a press and start a newpaper

Not that i am against capitalism, im just not a 100% liberal. I beleive in the golden middle way. Controlled market economics, healthy welfare and free public education.

Of course you can!
Can't you be a teacher?
You have to pass an exam, but you can if you work enough.
yes, but you said everybody can work there
some disabbled people cant...
and if you dont know how it works or if you aren't assigned to the farm
you can't work there in a nationalized farm

Oh great. I'll just fly in my new fighter jet to holiday in my new home in the houses of parliament then, shall I? You're just talking sh*te now, there's no arguing with this level of wrongness.So right now, you can't be a policeman, can you?

Of course you can!
Can't you be a teacher?
You have to pass an exam, but you can if you work enough.
Wow :o

Just like in the free market.

but other man have the right to shoot that man back...
in north korea only 1 man can kill anybody...
the only thing i say is that anarchy is complete freedom (i'm no anarchist)
so what you said was freedomchaos is not freedom.

Wow :o

Just like in the free market.
:D

So right now, you can't be a policeman, can you?
No. Not unless I work for the govt.

chaos is not freedom.
anarchy doesn't mean chaos
and yes it is freedom
you are free to do whatever you want
and if you are restricted
like saying you cant kill somebody
than some of your freedom is taken away

chaos is not freedom.
But Anarchy is. And Anarchy is order ;)

yes, but you said everybody can work there
some disabbled people cant...
and if you dont know how it works or if you aren't assigned to the farm
you can't work there in a nationalized farm
I meant everybody with the ability to do so. As opposed to only the family of the owner.

Wow :o

Just like in the free market.
Indeed, and just unlike capitalism.

I meant everybody with the ability to do so. As opposed to only the family of the owner.
in free market, the owner hires people so you have to i forgot the word
you gotta ask if you can work there
if so they hire you
if not they wont
but you CAN work on a farm
and you can also buy a farm from the farmer

but, some people really cant find jobs
and some people dont have the money or dont want to borrow it
thats why i'm a fan of communism :P and socialism

Indeed, and just unlike capitalism.
capitalism always means free market
in some casses a less free market...
so ur trying to say that the DDR had a more free market than the bonds-republic?

anarchy doesn't mean chaos
and yes it is freedom
you are free to do whatever you want
and if you are restricted
like saying you cant kill somebody
than some of your freedom is taken awayIf someone has the freedom to kill anybody who crosses a land, then everybody else has the freedom to cross the land removed.
-> banning killing improves the freedom of the population.

Indeed, and just unlike capitalism.
Hey, I just said I was pro-free market. Not pro capitalist.

If someone has the freedom to kill anybody who crosses a land, then everybody else has the freedom to cross the land removed.
-> banning killing improves the freedom of the population.
no, you can always shoot back
do you even know the definition of the word freedom?

in free market, the owner hires people so you have to i forgot the word
you gotta ask if you can work there
if so they hire you
if not they wont
but you CAN work on a farm
and you can also buy a farm from the farmer

but, some people really cant find jobs
and some people dont have the money or dont want to borrow it
thats why i'm a fan of communism :P and socialism
You've understood everything. Those with the capital are free. The others are not.

If someone has the freedom to kill anybody who crosses a land, then everybody else has the freedom to cross the land removed.
-> banning killing improves the freedom of the population.
You could use that logic to ban nearly anything.

capitalism always means free market
in some casses a less free market...
so ur trying to say that the DDR had a more free market than the bonds-republic?I don't know what DDR or cond-republic are.
I know, howevre for sure that free market and capitalism are two different things.

freedom means you can do what you want
if you ban shooting or killing
and you want to kill/shoot
than you cant beceause you're restricted
so not free anymore...

no, you can always shoot back
do you even know the definition of the word freedom?
Unless you are disabled.
You think freedom is not for the disabled?

I don't know what DDR or cond-republic are.
I know, howevre for sure that free market and capitalism are two different things.
actually no,
you can have free-market in another syste besides capitalism
but you can't have capitalism without free market

Unless you are disabled.
You think freedom is not for the disabled?
the disabled have the freedom to run, to hide or to seek protection under anarchy

You could use that logic to ban nearly anything.
Absolutelly not. I couldn't ban wearing blue jeans using that logic, because it doesn't conflict with other freedoms.

Absolutelly not. I couldn't ban wearing blue jeans using that logic, because it doesn't conflict with other freedoms.
actually it does
if you buy blue pants and someone else buys red
and everybody likes the red pants than you are ineqaul beceause of the blue pants

actually no,
you can have free-market in another syste besides capitalism
but you can't have capitalism without free market
:-) I feel understood.

actually it does
if you buy blue pants and someone else buys red
and everybody likes the red pants than you are ineqaul beceause of the blue pantsFReedom is not equality.

FReedom is not equality.
you are free to be eqaul
but than your not eqaul anymore so that freedom is taken away

the disabled have the freedom to run, to hide or to seek protection under anarchyNo they don't because they can't run.
You seem to think that only the government can tackle freedom and that freedom = no government.
Do you think the sheep is free when it is inside the teeth of the wolf?

No they don't because they can't run.
You seem to think that only the government can tackle freedom and that freedom = no government.
Do you think the sheep is free when it is inside the teeth of the wolves?
not if the wolve and the sheep are in a cage with a sheppard

ps. the sheppard protects the sheep
thats why i'm pro-governmental control

but beceause of that same sheppard the sheep is less free in his doing
but still the sheep is more happy than if he would be outside with the big evil wolves

not if the wolve and the sheep are in a cage with a sheppard
So you see, if I put the sheep in a cage, the sheep is no more free. And I'm not the government.
If the government bans me from putting the sheep in a cage, it guarantees the freedom of the sheep.

So you see, if I put the sheep in a cage, the sheep is no more free. And I'm not the government.
If the government bans me from putting the sheep in a cage, it guarantees the freedom of the sheep.
yes, but this freedom gives the sheep the risk of being eaten by a wolf
every freedoms have they're risks

just like free market
with free market you are free to start a company
but there is the risk of failure
but its still called FREE market

yes, but this freedom gives the sheep the risk of being eaten by a wolf
every freedoms have they're risksThat is why the government has to ban the eating of the sheep is it has to protect freedom.

That is why the government has to ban the eating of the sheep is it has to protect freedom.
yes, it should if you want to give the sheeps absolute freedom

yes, but this freedom gives the sheep the risk of being eaten by a wolf
every freedoms have they're risks

just like free market
with free market you are free to start a company
but there is the risk of failure
but its still called FREE marketIndeed.
However, in capitalism you are not free to start a company.
Only those with capital are free.

I'd say free market = socialism.

Indeed.
However, in capitalism you are not free to start a company.
Only those with capital are free.
yes, thats true
(can't argue that :D )

i started this and have yet to read an argument that changes my mind but keep trying i find it very interesting

i dissagree with the addition
free market = socialism
cause you aren't free to start a company
the government does
me love plan-economy
so everybody actually works for they're money

i dissagree with the addition
free market = socialism
cause you aren't free to start a company
the government does
me love plan-economy
so everybody actually works for they're moneyIndeed you're right.
Socialism is not necessarily free market.
However, I think the market can only be free under socialism.

Actually, many countries in Europe, especially the scandinavian ones, are quite socialist, so it would appear that socialism does work, at least in Norway, Sweden, etc. Those countries have an extremely high standard of living, so I'd say they're hardly living in "misery."


As a resident in one of those countries, Denmark, to be exact, I feel obligated to comment on this.
Yes, to an American my country would probably seem like a socialist country, due to its focus on an extensive social welfare system. And yes, we just about have the WR in high taxes, but this doesn't justify referring to Denmark as a socialist country. We don't try to keep everyone employed, and our workers certainly don't own the means of production, just to name a few things.

To Danes, socialism is usually considered something far more leftish (like Warsaw Pact-nations). Even a party like the Social Democrats are really very centrist in their policies. Likewise with our biggest liberal party. They've realized that centrist policies get them the most votes. These policies most closely resembles those of a social democratic system. While strictly speaking a branch of socialism, it is indeed quite different. Read more on this topic here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

many people (especially americans) dont seem to know what socialism is
pitty though... if they knew there would be lot more socialists

Oh right, socialism is FREE MARKET. Let's just CHANGE THE DEFINITIONS to make it fit why don't we?

People, if the government is handing out cash to anybody and taking half your limbs in taxes, it's not a free market. Period.

That said even the US isn't free market.

As far as needing capital to be free, that's stupid. That's like saying you need to be alive to be free, so any country with dead people is oppressive. If you're alive and entrepeneurial, you can get capital in this country. And besides, you don't need much capital to start a business - you're talking about starting corporations, but there are plenty of other business types and not all require much capital.

Oh right, socialism is FREE MARKET. Let's just CHANGE THE DEFINITIONS to make it fit why don't we?

People, if the government is handing out cash to anybody and taking half your limbs in taxes, it's not a free market. Period.

That said even the US isn't free market.

As far as needing capital to be free, that's stupid. That's like saying you need to be alive to be free, so any country with dead people is oppressive. If you're alive and entrepeneurial, you can get capital in this country. And besides, you don't need much capital to start a business - you're talking about starting corporations, but there are plenty of other business types and not all require much capital.
tell that to the 1 million new yorkers who live on the street

Hell yes!

The people of the free world must rise up against the Chinese, the Americans, and the Islamists!!!!!

tell that to the 1 million new yorkers who live on the street

Huh. According to these statistics (http://www.ppinys.org/nyecon.htm) there are only 561,000 unemployed. And I should note that "unemployed" does not necessarily mean, "living on the street."

And I'd wager that the vast majority of unemployed are NOT entrepeneurial. Thats part of what it takes to get capital and start businesses. Or hell, just to get a job. Part of it is luck. A lot of it is location. Luckily we DO have the freedom in this country to get jobs, and I try to make this fact known - not everyone remembers it.

I never claimed that free market capitalism = 100% employment OR that the US was a free market state, either.

Besides, even if a million were unemployed, how many have jobs and live far above the standard of living in other countries? 7 million? 6 out 7 isnt bad as far as NY goes!

if you live on the street they dont count you as a citizen...

Huh. According to these statistics (http://www.ppinys.org/nyecon.htm) there are only 561,000 unemployed. And I should note that "unemployed" does not necessarily mean, "living on the street."

And I'd wager that the vast majority of unemployed are NOT entrepeneurial. Thats part of what it takes to get capital and start businesses. Or hell, just to get a job. Part of it is luck. A lot of it is location. Luckily we DO have the freedom in this country to get jobs, and I try to make this fact known - not everyone remembers it.

I never claimed that free market capitalism = 100% employment OR that the US was a free market state, either.

Besides, even if a million were unemployed, how many have jobs and live far above the standard of living in other countries? 7 million? 6 out 7 isnt bad as far as NY goes!

they live above the standart beceause they exploited the poor nations to they're own benefits

Well, as long as we can agree they live above the standard of living.

Well, as long as we can agree they live above the standard of living.
i can hardly disagree :D lol

SOCAILISM-a system in which all people recieve equeal everything
sounds good doens't it.

Socailism supports lazyness!
A person working in a fast food market gets paid the same amount of money a docter gets.

In that case no one would want to be a lawyer or docter or any job that requires harder work.

Socailism looks good to the poorer class of people.
The people who drop out of collage and then get crummy jobs and little pay.
But in socailism that slum will get paid the same as everyone else.

CAPATALISM-System in which your skill and education and succes determines how much money you will make.

It encurages people to advance and become succesfull.

I wonder how bad socailism would destroy the U.S. if we used that goverment style.
The U.S. economy would collaspe in response to a shortage in proffesonal jobs.

SOCAILISM-a system in which all people recieve equeal everything
sounds good doens't it.

Socailism supports lazyness!
A person working in a fast food market gets paid the same amount of money a docter gets.

In that case no one would want to be a lawyer or docter or any job that requires harder work.

Socailism looks good to the poorer class of people.
The people who drop out of collage and then get crummy jobs and little pay.
But in socailism that slum will get paid the same as everyone else.

CAPATALISM-System in which your skill and education and succes determines how much money you will make.

It encurages people to advance and become succesfull.

I wonder how bad socailism would destroy the U.S. if we used that goverment style.
The U.S. economy would collaspe in response to a shortage in proffesonal jobs.
that prooves that a lot of people dont know what socialism is

Look at the way as socialism has been practiced in the real world in the past, there is no such thing as not-corrupt collectivism.

As with all ideologies, there are obvious benefits as well as disadvantages. Take a gander at these points relating to capitalism:

- Your decisions in life are your own. If you don't want to sell your flour to the government, you don't have to. If you'd like to bake it into bread, and sell that instead, you've got that option. In fact, you could even sell your flour to governments of OTHER nations, if you'd like! That sounds remarkably similar to the definition of economic freedom to me. Will you next profess that socialism grants freedom, as well? Do you think its a coincidence that almost every socialist government has also been a dictatorship? Last time I checked, dictatorships are almost always granting priviledges to the elite upper class. Honestly, that automatically invalidates any due credit socialism might be due.

- Capitalist nations typically support a wide range of cultures and beliefs, including such factors as language. Tends to embrace diversity. These are best pictured in today's Canada and the USA. Break out those definitions again - sanctioning practice of other religions and cultures in this fashion means cultural freedom!

- (This is the one I find the biggest) The very foundation of capitalism encourages innovation, inspiration, and self interest. Provides a basis for passion: particularily relating to arts and science. It encourages the aforementioned BECAUSE the reward for innovation or inspired hard-work is almost always economic benefit. Rewards are related to self interest, which is quite simply human nature. Whether you consider it to be evil or not, a person who is interested in himself is far more likely to work harder in order to live a better life. There is no reason for a citizen in a socialist nation to work harder; he will have lived the same life as every other person he knows, regardless.

- Capitalist nations are constantly educating its people on not only its own ideology, but ALL ideologies, including socialism! In fact, such education is compulsary among its younger generations. Do you think it's a coincidence that capitalists keep nothing from the public, while in the past all we've seen from socialist governments is obscene shows of indoctrination and propaganda. Throw in a little terror, and you've got a picture-perfect socialist government! Score one, buddy!

-You might say that capitalism leaves people who refuse to take an interest in ones self for example getting an education or acquiring a trade, to be unemployed. (However, capitalist nations are so prosperous now that even those without education or trade are reimbursed by the government. What this says to me, is that capitalism is able to provide the proposed benefits of socialism once it is prosperous)

-The very foundation of commerce and economics in general is the application of all things "goods & services". Why make a good product when the price will be the same in the end, anyway? In this very fashion, socialist societies actually promote LAZINESS and NEGLIGENCE! Let me try another analogy for you, shall I? Picture yourself entering a race where the prize for winning was a round of applause from the audience. The prize for 2nd place was a round of applause from the audience, equally as loud as for the winner of the race. The prize for last place is much the same, a round of equivalent applause from the audience. In that, you might be making the LOSER feel great, but that WINNER who has worked hard to get where he is would be feeling left out, and disappointed. Do you suppose that the WINNER would have any reason to try and win the race the next round? Or do you suppose that he would become lazy and negligent, and likely not even bother showing up at the next race? This is what we call logic, and reason. Perhaps you should read into it a little more.

Want a summary of why capitalism grinds socialism to dust? Economic freedom, cultural freedom and diversity; Passion and self interest; Poverty (or the lack thereof); and innovation. I could go on. I'm just sorry that you've still got such a firm belief in socialism when it so clearly does not work. "Oh, but of course it works, it just wasn't implemented properly before." Yes, but that's also what Lenin said. I'm sure it works great, that is, if you happen to be a government willing to "write-off" political unrest, civil war and revolt. All it will take is a few Stalinistic purges here or there, and I'm sure you'll have a nation full of believers to back you up. I don't mean to pound you into the ground with reason and logic. Notwithstanding that, you sir, are an ignoramus.

Oh right, socialism is FREE MARKET. Let's just CHANGE THE DEFINITIONS to make it fit why don't we?
Wrong socialism and free market are two different things.
Free market and capitalism are different things either.

People, if the government is handing out cash to anybody and taking half your limbs in taxes, it's not a free market. Period.

It depends. Free market does not mean no tax.
Free market means the market is free. Period.
If you can buy whatever you want and if you can sell whatever you want, the market is free. End of story.

Huh. According to these statistics (http://www.ppinys.org/nyecon.htm) there are only 561,000 unemployed. And I should note that "unemployed" does not necessarily mean, "living on the street."

And I'd wager that the vast majority of unemployed are NOT entrepeneurial. Thats part of what it takes to get capital and start businesses. Or hell, just to get a job. Part of it is luck. A lot of it is location. Luckily we DO have the freedom in this country to get jobs, and I try to make this fact known - not everyone remembers it.

I never claimed that free market capitalism = 100% employment OR that the US was a free market state, either.

Besides, even if a million were unemployed, how many have jobs and live far above the standard of living in other countries? 7 million? 6 out 7 isnt bad as far as NY goes!What about the country side?

SOCAILISM-a system in which all people recieve equeal everything
sounds good doens't it.

Socailism supports lazyness!
A person working in a fast food market gets paid the same amount of money a docter gets.

In that case no one would want to be a lawyer or docter or any job that requires harder work.

Socailism looks good to the poorer class of people.
The people who drop out of collage and then get crummy jobs and little pay.
But in socailism that slum will get paid the same as everyone else.

CAPATALISM-System in which your skill and education and succes determines how much money you will make.

It encurages people to advance and become succesfull.

I wonder how bad socailism would destroy the U.S. if we used that goverment style.
The U.S. economy would collaspe in response to a shortage in proffesonal jobs.
All right. Read the thread it's too long to explain socialism and capitalism to every single guy brain-washed by McCarthyism.

If someone has the freedom to kill anybody who crosses a land, then everybody else has the freedom to cross the land removed.
-> banning killing improves the freedom of the population.
If someone has the freedom to kill anybody who rapes them, then everyone else has the freedom to have sex removed....

Silly socialist, so inconsistent.... so poorly thought out.... so much damage caused....

All this argument about what to call this or that is pointless. Especially when you try to claim socialism is a free market, you can't win a debate by defining away the other guys position.

The facts, both from good economic theory and well researched history is that the system where people are FREE to own and trade private property, which I and 99.9% of people call a free market, promotes wealth, growth, self reliance and self respect, community spirit and rapid innovation whereas govt intervention, which I and 99.9% of people call socialism, promotes poverty, decline of wealth, dependency, alienation and stagnation of ideas.

Anything else is just ignorance or self deception, the twin roots of most, if not all, evil.

Think of Edison and his light bulb which he was readying for commercial production. After his light bulb was created, the door was opened for commercial production and fortunes to be made. Now dare tell yourself that the workers he hires off the street are the ones who made that wealth possible, and not Edison. Dare tell yourself that the man's MIND and innovation was something that could be easily replaced, and that the workers- blind labor doing what is ordered of them, performing in an instant what it took Edison years to discover- are irreplacable. Take away Edison and his mind and see if there is any wealth left for those workers to 'produce'.

Look at the way as socialism has been practiced in the real world in the past, there is no such thing as not-corrupt collectivism.All right you too need to read the thread. I'm going to explain it one more time because your post was such ignorance it's appalling.
Show me non-corrupt capitalism for a start. Socialism can be corrupt, it is not inherently corrupt. Capitalism is structurally corrupt. Check out Russia. Tell me how good was the switch. The mafia is not really betterthan the socialists.

As with all ideologies, there are obvious benefits as well as disadvantages. Take a gander at these points relating to capitalism:
Indeed but those you cited are propaganda and false. Let's see.

- Your decisions in life are your own. If you don't want to sell your flour to the government, you don't have to. If you'd like to bake it into bread, and sell that instead, you've got that option. In fact, you could even sell your flour to governments of OTHER nations, if you'd like! That sounds remarkably similar to the definition of economic freedom to me. Will you next profess that socialism grants freedom, as well? Do you think its a coincidence that almost every socialist government has also been a dictatorship? Last time I checked, dictatorships are almost always granting priviledges to the elite upper class. Honestly, that automatically invalidates any due credit socialism might be due.
Oh yeah what a freedom. You can have your island and tan on the beach all day snorting cocaïn. Oh wait. what about those who don't have a flat? Can they bake bread with it? NO! There is freedom for the few and slavery for the masses.

- Capitalist nations typically support a wide range of cultures and beliefs, including such factors as language. Tends to embrace diversity. These are best pictured in today's Canada and the USA. Break out those definitions again - sanctioning practice of other religions and cultures in this fashion means cultural freedom!
Cultural freedom unless you're black, arab, communist or socialist

- (This is the one I find the biggest) The very foundation of capitalism encourages innovation, inspiration, and self interest. Provides a basis for passion: particularily relating to arts and science. It encourages the aforementioned BECAUSE the reward for innovation or inspired hard-work is almost always economic benefit. Rewards are related to self interest, which is quite simply human nature. Whether you consider it to be evil or not, a person who is interested in himself is far more likely to work harder in order to live a better life. There is no reason for a citizen in a socialist nation to work harder; he will have lived the same life as every other person he knows, regardless.Capitalism rewards the capital. All the other things you said is propaganda bullshit. Hard work isn't rewarded.

- Capitalist nations are constantly educating its people on not only its own ideology, but ALL ideologies, including socialism! In fact, such education is compulsary among its younger generations. Do you think it's a coincidence that capitalists keep nothing from the public, while in the past all we've seen from socialist governments is obscene shows of indoctrination and propaganda. Throw in a little terror, and you've got a picture-perfect socialist government! Score one, buddy!
Yeah right, like McCarthy was educating the population about communism. Look at you, you sure sound very educated about socialism and not brain-washed at all. Note the sarcasm. Seriously you don't see it because you are brain-washed, but from here we can see how much the US relies on propaganda. Look at the war on terror bullshit. And they believe it.

-You might say that capitalism leaves people who refuse to take an interest in ones self for example getting an education or acquiring a trade, to be unemployed. (However, capitalist nations are so prosperous now that even those without education or trade are reimbursed by the government. What this says to me, is that capitalism is able to provide the proposed benefits of socialism once it is prosperous)This non-sense show how little you know about socialism. Socialism is the most advanced system we know today. Socialism only work when the country is prosperous. It is the step after capitalism. Read Marx. He didn't say that a society can jump from feudalism to socialism. He said that capitalism was an improvment from feudalism. Now that we have a working capitalist system, socialism is the way to go.

-The very foundation of commerce and economics in general is the application of all things "goods & services". Why make a good product when the price will be the same in the end, anyway? In this very fashion, socialist societies actually promote LAZINESS and NEGLIGENCE! Let me try another analogy for you, shall I? Picture yourself entering a race where the prize for winning was a round of applause from the audience. The prize for 2nd place was a round of applause from the audience, equally as loud as for the winner of the race. The prize for last place is much the same, a round of equivalent applause from the audience. In that, you might be making the LOSER feel great, but that WINNER who has worked hard to get where he is would be feeling left out, and disappointed. Do you suppose that the WINNER would have any reason to try and win the race the next round? Or do you suppose that he would become lazy and negligent, and likely not even bother showing up at the next race? This is what we call logic, and reason. Perhaps you should read into it a little more.
This is all wrong. Who said the workers should not been paid? Not the socialists in fact.
Let me use your analogy. Let say the owner of the team pays a salary to the runner. Once the runner wins, the owner get the price. Where is the incentive for the runner?
On the other hand if you pay the winner the most, there is incentive. This is why socialism provides most incentive to work.

Want a summary of why capitalism grinds socialism to dust? Economic freedom, cultural freedom and diversity; Passion and self interest; Poverty (or the lack thereof); and innovation. I could go on. I'm just sorry that you've still got such a firm belief in socialism when it so clearly does not work. "Oh, but of course it works, it just wasn't implemented properly before." Yes, but that's also what Lenin said. I'm sure it works great, that is, if you happen to be a government willing to "write-off" political unrest, civil war and revolt. All it will take is a few Stalinistic purges here or there, and I'm sure you'll have a nation full of believers to back you up. I don't mean to pound you into the ground with reason and logic. Notwithstanding that, you sir, are an ignoramus.
As McCarthy said, capitalism is the same as freedom, democracy and chocolate, whereas communism is the same as jail, dictatorship, gayness, and shit.
This is good propaganda, but it has no value as an argument.
ignoramus.

Think of Edison and his light bulb which he was readying for commercial production. After his light bulb was created, the door was opened for commercial production and fortunes to be made. Now dare tell yourself that the workers he hires off the street are the ones who made that wealth possible, and not Edison. Dare tell yourself that the man's MIND and innovation was something that could be easily replaced, and that the workers- blind labor doing what is ordered of them, performing in an instant what it took Edison years to discover- are irreplacable. Take away Edison and his mind and see if there is any wealth left for those workers to 'produce'.
Yeah and Edison is capitalism. Sure.

If someone has the freedom to kill anybody who rapes them, then everyone else has the freedom to have sex removed....

Silly socialist, so inconsistent.... so poorly thought out.... so much damage caused....
What's your point?
I think the freedom to decide what you do with your own body is more important than the freedom to have sex.

All this argument about what to call this or that is pointless. Especially when you try to claim socialism is a free market, you can't win a debate by defining away the other guys position.

The facts, both from good economic theory and well researched history is that the system where people are FREE to own and trade private property, which I and 99.9% of people call a free market, promotes wealth, growth, self reliance and self respect, community spirit and rapid innovation whereas govt intervention, which I and 99.9% of people call socialism, promotes poverty, decline of wealth, dependency, alienation and stagnation of ideas.

Anything else is just ignorance or self deception, the twin roots of most, if not all, evil.
Yeah 99% of the people brain-washed by McCarthy.
If you talked another language you would know what you are saying is false.
Only in the english speacking world is socialism considered to be backward. In the rest of the world, socialism is progress.

Do any of you even know what it is like in a socialist state? For the most part, no you do not. I live in Hungary, and I can tell you that it was not horrible, everyone had a job, everyone had money, no-one was envious of anyone else in terms of wealth and possessions, there was food, people had cars, and when people became old there was a generous payment system from the government. Its main problem was the severe debts due to not enouogh private enterprise, but for most it was the best time in their lives . You are right it was not perfect, but neither is "capitalism". For those who dont know what socialism is, you have no right to talk about it and to critique it, for you just dont know!

Yeah 99% of the people brain-washed by McCarthy.
If you talked another language you would know what you are saying is false.
Only in the english speacking world is socialism considered to be backward. In the rest of the world, socialism is progress.
no, some english-speaking dudes also know socialism is progress

Do any of you even know what it is like in a socialist state? For the most part, no you do not. I live in Hungary, and I can tell you that it was not horrible, everyone had a job, everyone had money, no-one was envious of anyone else in terms of wealth and possessions, there was food, people had cars, and when people became old there was a generous payment system from the government. Its main problem was the severe debts due to not enouogh private enterprise, but for most it was the best time in their lives . You are right it was not perfect, but neither is "capitalism". For those who dont know what socialism is, you have no right to talk about it and to critique it, for you just dont know!
:D
actually capitalism is worse (africa, south-america etc.)

Neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism work in reality. They both produce immense suffering. The best economic system is a middle way between them, like they have in Sweden. They have a free market and a welfare state. They have a very high standard of living and regulation of business.

Neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism work in reality. They both produce immense suffering. The best economic system is a middle way between them, like they have in Sweden. They have a free market and a welfare state. They have a very high standard of living and regulation of business.
a welfare-state is for lazy people (not socialism)
we have that in the netherlands
and its uhm... for lazy people :D
you dont do shit and everybody who works gives you money
maybe its not much, but you can live of it

Socialism works just swell, so long as there are enough rich and industrious capitalists around to pay for it.

Socialism works just swell, so long as there are enough rich and industrious capitalists around to pay for it.
actually not, damn another dude who doesn't understand socialism
and i'm too lazy to explain

Socialism works just swell, so long as there are enough rich and industrious capitalists around to pay for it.
Capitalism works just well so long as there are enough slave-workers to work for it.

Capitalism works just well so long as there are enough slave-workers to work for it.
not in modern capitalism
they dont even need slaves anymore
they have these big evil poluting things called machines
so that the slave-workers are useless and they can get richer beceause machines are cheaper than slaves

What's your point?
I think the freedom to decide what you do with your own body is more important than the freedom to have sex.
You don't seem to have any developed line of thought here. You just say "this is bad", "this is good", "this is freedom".....

Yeah 99% of the people brain-washed by McCarthy.
If you talked another language you would know what you are saying is false.
Only in the english speacking world is socialism considered to be backward. In the rest of the world, socialism is progress.
Depends whether you consider poverty, decline of wealth, dependency, alienation and stagnation of ideas to be progress or not.

You don't seem to have any developed line of thought here. You just say "this is bad", "this is good", "this is freedom".....
actually there is no such thing as good and bad except in really extreme casses but i cant think of one

Neither pure capitalism nor pure socialism work in reality. They both produce immense suffering. The best economic system is a middle way between them, like they have in Sweden. They have a free market and a welfare state. They have a very high standard of living and regulation of business.
Neither has been tried in the reality I live in.

Isn't socialism kinda like communism? Atleast that's how I've understood it.

Kinda,according to Marx to get to Socialism you have to have Communisim first.The main difference is that Communism is an economic system and,contrary to popular belief,has nothing to do with governing a country.

Neither has been tried in the reality I live in.
pure capitalism before the industrial revolution

You don't seem to have any developed line of thought here. You just say "this is bad", "this is good", "this is freedom".....That's because you didn't understand the point.
The point was that government intervention can improve freedom.
And you jumped to say government intervention can tackle freedom.
It may be true, it doesn't make my first point invalid.

None of this changes the fact that there is a developed school of thought in 'Free market socialism' the argument is simply that the workers own the means of production and distribution but prices are set by the market - it is the idea that current capitalist businesses would collectivize but other things would be essentially unchanged - no central planning or total redistribution - just a collectivized market.

You may not agree with its logic but that doesn't change the fact that it exists as an idea.
That is the same as a free market in the limiting case where the workers own the means of production. Of course, once you had this you might think, "the workers might better avoid risk by owning part of their company and part of another so we should make stocks and shares tradeable" and then we're back to the real thing.

Kinda,according to Marx to get to Socialism you have to have Communisim first.The main difference is that Communism is an economic system and,contrary to popular belief,has nothing to do with governing a country.
communism has everything to do with governing a nation
socialism hasn't
it might sound strange but it is

democrat socialism and authoritarian socialism are 2 different things but there is no such thing as authoritarian communism or democratic communism

Depends whether you consider poverty, decline of wealth, dependency, alienation and stagnation of ideas to be progress or not.
Most of the world consider that to be the opposite of progress.

pure capitalism before the industrial revolution
Ha ha ha. Is this a wind up? Am I on TV? You're making no sense here.

That is the same as a free market in the limiting case where the workers own the means of production. Of course, once you had this you might think, "the workers might better avoid risk by owning part of their company and part of another so we should make stocks and shares tradeable" and then we're back to the real thing.
you can have socialism with free market but not really...
if you do so its called social democracy
so no it's impossible

That's because you didn't understand the point.
The point was that government intervention can improve freedom.
And you jumped to say government intervention can tackle freedom.
It may be true, it doesn't make my first point invalid.
Agressive violence never improves freedom, defensive violence is necessary to preserve it. Govt agression (taxes, regulations etc) decrease it while govt defence (laws against force, theft and fraud) improve it. I simply contend that a system of private defence could do the latter without doing the former.

Ha ha ha. Is this a wind up? Am I on TV? You're making no sense here.
that was pure capitalism
and guess what...
it sucks

That is the same as a free market in the limiting case where the workers own the means of production. Of course, once you had this you might think, "the workers might better avoid risk by owning part of their company and part of another so we should make stocks and shares tradeable" and then we're back to the real thing.
Back to exploitation by the capital.

Agressive violence never improves freedom, defensive violence is necessary to preserve it. Govt agression (taxes, regulations etc) decrease it while govt defence (laws against force, theft and fraud) improve it. I simply contend that a system of private defence could do the latter without doing the former.
you an anarchist?

Most of the world consider that to be the opposite of progress.
Except you, apparantly. Or you stick your fingers in your ears and pretend this isn't what socialism means.

Except you, apparantly. Or you stick your fingers in your ears and pretend this isn't what socialism means.
actually, people aren't that oppresed under socialism
they are a little more opresses i admit that but its for the greater good

that was pure capitalism
and guess what...
it sucks
It was not a free market in the way I understand the term.

you an anarchist?
Yes. "Rational Anarchist" or "Libertarian".

It was not a free market in the way I understand the term.
than you understand that term in the wrong way
before the industrial revolution was pure capitalism
after there came workers rights and minimum-wages etc...
so it changed in a milder form of capitalism

Yes. "Rational Anarchist" or "Libertarian".
:D jeah, i'm good ;)

Agressive violence never improves freedom, defensive violence is necessary to preserve it. Govt agression (taxes, regulations etc) decrease it while govt defence (laws against force, theft and fraud) improve it. I simply contend that a system of private defence could do the latter without doing the former.
No it couldn't stop the wolf from eating the sheep, because the sheep doesn't have weapons.
Likewise, the poor doesn't have the capital to protect himself against the rich.

actually, people aren't that oppresed under socialism
they are a little more opresses i admit that but its for the greater good
As Bastiat says....

"Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism."

Surely you realise that if a private citizen goes around stealing, pillaging and prohibiting this and that it is bad for everyone, even if he gives his ill gotten gains to charity. Why don't you accept this is also true for people with shiny badges calling themselves a "government"?

Except you, apparantly. Or you stick your fingers in your ears and pretend this isn't what socialism means.
It isn't what socialism mean.

As Bastiat says....

"Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism."

Surely you realise that if a private citizen goes around stealing, pillaging and prohibiting this and that it is bad for everyone, even if he gives his ill gotten gains to charity. Why don't you accept this is also true for people with shiny badges calling themselves a "government"?Because we have a democracy. I can eject the people with the shiny badge.
If you have no democracy then socialism is dangerous.

As Bastiat says....

"Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism."

Surely you realise that if a private citizen goes around stealing, pillaging and prohibiting this and that it is bad for everyone, even if he gives his ill gotten gains to charity. Why don't you accept this is also true for people with shiny badges calling themselves a "government"?
actually they dont 'steal' it for themselves but for they're people...

so instead of it going to a private citizen they return it to the people
so actually it isn't stealing

than you understand that term in the wrong way
before the industrial revolution was pure capitalism
after there came workers rights and minimum-wages etc...
so it changed in a milder form of capitalism
You can call that a free market if you want, I'm already ignoring how you use these words. It wasn't the system based on private property and freedom to trade and produce. It was based on privilidges for favoured merchants and guilds of trade with monopolies. It also had taxes, especially for military adventuring, which is completely against Libertarianism and human rights.

It seems you're trying to prevent me arguing by defining away my position. Let's talk about ideas, not labels.

Because we have a democracy. I can eject the people with the shiny badge.
If you have no democracy then socialism is dangerous.
not dangerous i think its even better for the nations structure without democracy

You can call that a free market if you want, I'm already ignoring how you use these words. It wasn't the system based on private property and freedom to trade and produce. It was based on privilidges for favoured merchants and guilds of trade with monopolies. It also had taxes, especially for military adventuring, which is completely against Libertarianism and human rights.

It seems you're trying to prevent me arguing by defining away my position. Let's talk about ideas, not labels.
i'm not labeling you
i'm labeling pure capitalism
and that was pure capitalism
anarchism isn't pure capitalism
cause taxes are a part of capitalism

To all of you who thinks that Sweden hasn't done anything (a lot of people said that early in the thread). Here's some (not all, but the most famous stuff) of what Sweden has provided.

1) semi_swedish: The Coca Cola bottle

The characteristic Coca Cola bottle was designed by the Swedish-American Alex Samuelson and was introduced in 1916.

2) semi-swedish: The Zipper

The American Elias Howe was the first one to obtain a patent of the zipper in 1851. In this first construction of the zipper the hooks were sewed to the material one by one and this was made by hand. This construction was later improved by several people, among others the American Whitcomb Judson in 1893 and by the Swedish-Americans Peter A. Aronsson in1906 and Gideon Sundbäck in 1913. Sundbäck's idea was to punch out the hooks and fasten them on two pieces of cloth (ribbons). These ribbons (with the zippers) could then be sewn to the clothes with a machine.

3) silly, but still: The Spiritual Song How Great Thou Art (O Store Gud)

The Swedish hymn "O store gud" has been translated into several languages in the Christian world. The English name of the hymn is How Great Thou Art and has among others been recorded by Elvis Presley and Dolly Parton.

The hymn was written by pastor Carl Boberg (1859 - 1940) in the summer of 1885 in Mönsterås, Småland, Sweden. The hymn saw it's first light on a warm summer day, just after a thunderstorm, when the storm had moved away.
Carl Boberg was 26 years old when he wrote the hymn. The song was sold to the Swedish Missionary Society and was sung to the public for the first time in 1888. At first the song was done in 3/4 time but was soon changed to 4/4 time.
A lot of Swedish immigrants to the US took this song with them as a remainder of their old country.
In the beginning of the 1950's the American revivalist Billy Graham heard the song for the first time and he took the hymn to his heart. He even made this hymn his signature tune.
"O Store Gud" is now one of the world's most widely known spiritual songs.

4) The Blowlamp / Blowtorch

Carl Richard Nyberg, 1858-1939 obtained a patent of the blowtorch in 1881 and production started the following year. The blowtorch became a great export success.

5) The Celsius Thermometer

The thermometer that finally became international standard was the Celsius thermometer with its 100-degree scale (centigrade) starting at the freezing point of water and ending on the boiling point of water. A degree Celsius is written °C. The originator of the Celsius thermometer was the Swede Anders Celsius (1701 - 1744). The Celsius thermometer is also called the Centigrade thermometer in English. However in honor of Anders Celsius the most common name is the Celsius thermometer.

6) the Dynamite

The Swede Alfred Nobel was born in 1833 in Stockholm and died in 1896 in San Remo, Italy. He was studying chemistry in S:t Petersburg, Russia and was doing experimentation in order to get a fuse and black powder to ignite nitro-glycerin.
An Italian chemist had been able to produce nitro-glycerin in 1847. The explosive effect of nitro-glycerin is great, however it is not shockproof and it is difficult to handle.
Alfred Nobel solved this problem by mixing nitro-glycerin with porous kieselguhr (diatomite) and thereby the dynamite was invented. In 1867 Alfred Nobel obtained a Swedish patent on dynamite. The dynamite is wrapped in paraffin paper, so called dynamite cartridges. A blasting cap is used to ignite a dynamite cartridge or stick of dynamite.
In 1864 a terrible explosion occurred in the Nobel laboratory and five persons were killed, among the Alfred's brother Emil.
Alfred Nobel became the leader of a world empire. According to his last will and testament a large part of his fortune was to be used to award great achievements in science, literature and peacekeeping activities. Hereby the Nobel Prize saw its first light.
Nobel had decided that five prizes were to be established; in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and a Peace Prize.
The prizes in Physics and Chemistry was to be administered by the Swedish Academy of Science, the prize in Medicine by Karolinska institutet and the prize in Literature by the Swedish Academy. The Peace Prize was to be administered by the Norwegian parliament, the Storting (Norway belonged to Sweden between 1814 and 1905).
The Nobel Prize Ceremony is held annually at Alfred Nobel's death day, December 10, in Stockholm plus the Peace Prize in Oslo.

7) I have no idea what it is, but still: The Paraffin / Kerosene Stove

C. Östlund patented a first gasification burner in 1885. In 1892 Frans Wilhelm Lindqvist, 1862-1931, obtained a patent on a Kerosene Stove operated by compressed air, the so-called Primusköket (The Primus Stove), which became a great export success all over the world.

8) The Gas Lighthouse

At the turn of the century 1900 Nils Gustav Dahlén, 1869 - 1937, and Henrik von Celsing got interested in illuminating engineering.
Within this field, acetylene gas had recently been known as an alternative to electricity and town gas. Dahlén developed an automatic beacon lighting system, which reduced the consumption of acetylene gas with over 90 %. With a revolving light apparatus he got the beacon lighting to turn on and turn off in regular intervals, and with the help of a light sensor he got the lighting in the lighthouse to be turned off at daytime. The company Gustav Dahlén and Henrik von Celsing started later became known as AGA AB. Gustav Dahlén received the Nobel Prize in 1912.

9) The Ball Bearing

A ball bearing is a bearing where the rolling bodies consist of balls. The most common type is the "spårkullager". The ball bearing, as we know them today, was developed during the second half of the 1800's. They were then first of all used in bicycles and horse drawn carriages. During the 1900's several new types of ball bearings was developed, for example the spherical ball bearing, which was invented in 1907 by Sven Wingquist, 1876-1953.
Sven Wingquist was the Managing Director of AB Svenska Kullagerfabriken (SKF), which was started in 1907 on the initiative of Sven Wingquist. ("Kullager" = ball bearing, "fabrik" = plant/factory).

10) The refrigerator without any moving parts

A refrigerator is a heat insulated box or cupboard equipped with a refrigerating machine which provides a desired temperature in box.
Already during the period of study at the Stockholm Technical College (KTH) in the 1920's Baltzar von Platen (1898-1984) began, together with Carl Munter, to construct a refrigerating machine without any moving parts according to the absorption principle. This invention became a worldwide sensation and was exploited by the Swedish company AB Elektrolux. This invention is still today used to a large extent in refrigerators and freezers intended for places where there is no electricity.

11) The Pacemaker

A pacemaker is a battery-powered electronic heart stimulator, which can be inserted by operation into a person in order to stimulate the cardiac muscle.
The American physician Paul Zoll developed the idea of an electronic heart stimulator in 1952. The Swedish physician and inventor Rune Elmqvist, 1906-1996, developed the first pacemaker, which could actually be inserted by operation. The surgeon Åke Senning carried out the first surgery in 1958.

12) danish-sewdish: The Separator

The separator is a device, which can separate two non-mixable liquids of different density or separate liquid and particles, with the assistance of centrifugal force.
In 1878 the Swede, Gustaf de Laval, 1845 - 1913, and the Dane, L.C. Nielsen, independently developed the first continuously operating separators. The separator gained a significant importance for the industrialization of the dairying business where it, among other things, was used to separate milk and cream. This made the manufacturing of butter much easier and faster. Gustaf de Laval founded the company AB Separator, today known as Alfa-Laval AB.

13) Ship's propeller

The ship's propeller is a device to make a ship to move through the water. Forward propulsion is developed by making the water accelerate astern so that the speed of the propeller's jet stream is greater than the surrounding water. A propeller is composed of a number of blades, fitted to a hub mounted on a rotating propeller shaft.
In 1826 the Swede John Ericsson, 1803 - 1889, went to Great Britain. In the UK, among other things, he worked to improve the ship's propeller. Propellers had been tried out in the 1810's but it hadn't found any wide field of application. Ericsson's experiment with two propellers rotating in opposite direction was a new thinking in the area. He constructed a propeller that was used on the two-mast schooner Robert F. Stockton, which sailed to the US in 1839. This ship was the first propeller-driven ship in the USA that was used in maritime trade. During the autumn in 1839, Ericsson went to the USA. He carried on his improvement of the propeller in America. The steam frigate Princeton, which was fitted with an Ericsson propeller, won a race against the side-wheeler Great Western. This victory by a propeller-driven ship lead to the final breakthrough for propeller powered vessels.
During the American civil war, Ericsson constructed an armor-clad ship, the Monitor, on behalf of the Union States. The Monitor made considerable achievements during the war. In 1862 she won the naval battle at Hampton Roads, Virginia.

During Ericsson's time in the UK he also constructed an effective steam boiler. This steam boiler was used in the railway engine Novelty, that participated in a race on the Manchester–Liverpool line. However, the railway engine Rocket, constructed by George and Robert Stephenson, won this race.

14) The Safety Match

In 1844 Gustaf Erik Pasch, 1788-1862, invented the safety match. His surname was Berggren until 1806. The safety match is not inflammable unlike the phosphorus match (with white phosphorus on the match head). The firing device on the safety match, which is red phosphorus, has been moved from the match to a special striking surface.

15) semi-swedish/swedish improvement: Telephony

Alexander Graham Bell (1847 - 1922) invented the telephone in 1876. Early on, the Swede, Lars Magnus Ericsson (1846 - 1926), became very interested in this means of communication. In 1876 he founded the company L. M. Ericsson, today known as Ericsson. In 1884 he constructed the first handheld micro telephone, which he obtained a patent for in 1895. In 1884 the company's first desk telephone saw its first light. In 1890 this desk telephone was fitted with a handheld micro telephone and became a great success.


16) Tetra Pak

The Swede, Ruben Rausing, (1895-1983), together with Erik Åkerlund, founded the packing company Åkerlund & Rausing (Å&R) in 1930. Rausing bought out Erik Åkerlund after a few years. Within company the development of plastic-coated cardboard packages for floating merchandise soon started. These packages later became the base of a separate company, Tetra Pak, which was founded in 1950 by Ruben Rausing.
This package system that Å&R developed in the 1940's was revolutionary, not only by continuous forming, filling and sealing but also by the material, the plastic-coated cardboard. The first packaging machine was set up at the Lund's dairy in 1952.
Good protection by a patent made a quick development possible on both the domestic as well on the international market. The Tetra Pak's packages made a definite breakthrough in the 1960's when the old milk bottles were replaced with packages made of plastic-coated cardboard.

17) Tungsten

In 1751 Axel Fredrik Cronstedt, (1722-1765), discovered a mineral that he, due its high density, called tungsten; later the name was changed to scheelit. in 1781 Carl Wilhelm Scheele, (1742-1786), proved that tungsten consists of lime and an unknown acid, tungsten acid.
Scheele managed to transfer tungsten acid into crystallized salts with the help of potassium carbonate and ammonia. However he didn't manage to reduce it. Two Spaniards discovered the same acid that Scheele had found in tungsten, in the mineral Volfram and they managed to reduce it to a metal as they named Volfram.
Germany used the name scheelium in honor of Scheele's discovery. Sweden uses the name Volfram. However many countries use the original name, tungsten; the Swedish name of the mineral that Scheele found in the highest oxide of the metal. The English spoken countries uses the name tungsten, the French use tungstène and the Italians tungsteno.
Scheele also discovered the element chlorine.

18) The Pipe Wrench

The Swede Johan Petter Johansson, 1853-1943, invented the pipe wrench in 1888. A pipe wrench is a pair of jaws with an adjustable width. It is designed to tighten the grip when you turn it in one of the directions.

19) The adjustable spanner / Wrench

The Swede Johan Petter Johansson, 1853-1943, developed the wrench or the adjustable spanner of the model that is used all over the world today. He obtained a patent for it in 1892.
The wrench is also called Swedish wrench.

Source: http://www.algonet.se/~hogman/inventions.htm

------------------------

Also keep in mind that Sweden only has 9 million inhabitants.

Heres some more reading for the interested, http://www.sweden.se/templates/FactSheet____3127.asp

Because we have a democracy. I can eject the people with the shiny badge.
If you have no democracy then socialism is dangerous.
No YOU can't do anything. Your voice is drowned out by 40 million other ignorant plunderers. It doesn't matter who you vote for, the govt wins and the people lose. Democracy is as corrupt, if not more so, as any other form of organised crime.

not dangerous i think its even better for the nations structure without democracyI disagree. We are not ready for aristocracy yet. There is still a lot of corruption going around.

The socialism that we saw, was not the true written and theororised form, that is true, same can be said for capitalism. It was shown that socialism didnt work, the money was not there. But capitalism too will fail, it is decaying, the people in the so called "capitalistic" and "democratic" socities are stupid, so stupid, they dont even compare to Hungarians, Poles, Czech, or other CEE peoples. Debt was the downfall of socialism, but stupidity and a society of drones will be the downfall of capitalism.

No YOU can't do anything. Your voice is drowned out by 40 million other ignorant plunderers. It doesn't matter who you vote for, the govt wins and the people lose. Democracy is as corrupt, if not more so, as any other form of organised crime.I think it is not that corrupt. The mafia is way more corrupt than the government.

Freedom is a very complicated matter as it presents itself in many forms. Yes taxation reduces a persons Freedom of Materialism but can directly increase other freedoms such as freedom to travell and freedom of healthcare (via public utilities created from said taxation). The argument then possibly lies in which system gives us the maximum number of freedoms. In relaiton to this we must realise the inherent power that capital has to reduce freedoms as well as increase them. Capital is an exchange medium for so much within capitalist society (power, resources, etc) that it being privately owned can have a negative impact upon the freedom of others. Work force alienation and basic poor treatment of workers by capital empowered individuals and companies are obvious examples of such negative effects. We also should bear in mind that we spend probably about 65% of our entire waking lives working, this time is abstracted and held as a resource by companies in a capitalist society and then partially redistributed to the workforce. In a socialist situation then the money generated by the labour time of an individual is directed straight back to him, then it is on the whole (depending on the extremity deemed required) directed back to the government via tax as the individual has no more rightr to weild it's power of abstraction over others than the company. The capital is then given back to the individual indirectly via the provision of public services (and/or housing etc, again depending on how far you wish to take the ideology) which themselves contain a new use-value to replace the use-value undermined by the abstraction of capital as an exchange medium to begin with.
The system works boys and girls, appoint me god emperor and i'll show you.

i'm not labeling you
i'm labeling pure capitalism
and that was pure capitalism
anarchism isn't pure capitalism
cause taxes are a part of capitalism
Then you're not criticising me at all. You haven't put together a coherent post against Libertarianism because you keep criticising something I'm not in favour of anyway. I don't even use the word "capitalism" because it creates too much of this sort of confusion. Stop all this flapping about and get to the point.

I think it is not that corrupt. The mafia is way more corrupt than the government.
Yes. Just look at how the mafia are murdering Iraqis ever day, just look at how many billions of pounds (or Euros) the mafia extort from hard working people every day, just look at how the mafia conscript youths into fighting their wars under threat of imprisonment, just look at how the mafia corrupts the economy....

Libertovania : I think we agree. We both think freedom is important.
The difference we have is that I think libertarianism is not possible in today world because we have nuclear weapons. At least not now, maybe in 2000 years or so. You think it is possible but IMO you're utopian.
Your system sounds good once implemented but there is no transition plan.

actually they dont 'steal' it for themselves but for they're people...

More self-deception. Studies in America have shown that poor people pay more in taxes as a class than they receive. Further, they are not a single class, and what happens is a transfer of wealth from hard working poor people to lazy and irresponsible poor people.

so instead of it going to a private citizen they return it to the people
so actually it isn't stealing
They take from SOME people, keep some for themselves, and give to OTHER people, which is stealing.

Taxes aren't raised for the benefit of the taxed!

To all of you who thinks that Sweden hasn't done anything (a lot of people said that early in the thread). Here's some (not all, but the most famous stuff) of what Sweden has provided......

....

So you're telling me that Sweden contributed lots to the world until about fifty years ago, round about when it became socialist.

More self-deception. Studies in America have shown that poor people pay more in taxes as a class than they receive. Further, they are not a single class, and what happens is a transfer of wealth from hard working poor people to lazy and irresponsible poor people.
Socialism is about trying to improve that, so progresive taxes are put on the rich instead of the poor.

Libertovania : I think we agree. We both think freedom is important.
The difference we have is that I think libertarianism is not possible in today world because we have nuclear weapons. At least not now, maybe in 2000 years or so. You think it is possible but IMO you're utopian.
Your system sounds good once implemented but there is no transition plan.
Typical Psylos wooly nonsense. Nuclear weapons are irrelevant. Many states manage without them, why couldn't a free land? If you're worried about private citizens aquiring nukes I wouldn't, nobody and their police force would allow nuclear weapons in their "back yard". Then you pull "2000 years" out your ass! Why not 200 or 20 or 2 or 0? I'm not utopian at all, utopian means it wouldn't work in practice. I've not heard any reason from anyone, least of all you, why it wouldn't.

Socialism is about trying to improve that, so progresive taxes are put on the rich instead of the poor.
It. Doesn't. Work.

Whenever this has been tried it has resulted in misery and poverty. Stop living in La La land and wake the f*ck up. Read an economics textbook, a good one mind. You're embarassing yourself.

Typical Psylos wooly nonsense. Nuclear weapons are irrelevant. Many states manage without them, why couldn't a free land? If you're worried about private citizens aquiring nukes I wouldn't, nobody and their police force would allow nuclear weapons in their "back yard". Then you pull "2000 years" out your ass! Why not 200 or 20 or 2 or 0? I'm not utopian at all, utopian means it wouldn't work in practice. I've not heard any reason from anyone, least of all you, why it wouldn't.
So what do you do with the existing military hardware? You destroy it? OK. How much time before the US invades your perfect society?

It. Doesn't. Work.

Whenever this has been tried it has resulted in misery and poverty. Stop living in La La land and wake the f*ck up. Read an economics textbook, a good one mind. You're embarassing yourself.
Norway
Sweden
Canada
France
UK
Germany
USA
Japan
Switzerland
Luxembourg
Belgium
Netherlands
Spain
Italy

They all have higher taxes for the rich than for the poor.

Norway
Sweden
Canada
France
UK
Germany
USA
Japan
Switzerland
Luxembourg
Belgium
Netherlands
Spain
Italy

They all have higher taxes for the rich than for the poor.
And would be better off without them. These countries are rich in proportion to how much economic freedom they have or once had. Where are Russia, China and North Korea on this list?

And would be better off without them. These countries are rich in proportion to how much economic freedom they have or once had. Where are Russia, China and North Korea on this list?
Let's take Russia.
Russia is now ultra-capitalist.
Do you know they were a superpower? What was the GDP then? What is the GDP now?

More self-deception. Studies in America have shown that poor people pay more in taxes as a class than they receive. Further, they are not a single class, and what happens is a transfer of wealth from hard working poor people to lazy and irresponsible poor people.

They take from SOME people, keep some for themselves, and give to OTHER people, which is stealing.

Taxes aren't raised for the benefit of the taxed!
1. thats america and america isn't socialism
2. no they take it from all people and give it to all people
please read the communist manifest

Then you're not criticising me at all. You haven't put together a coherent post against Libertarianism because you keep criticising something I'm not in favour of anyway. I don't even use the word "capitalism" because it creates too much of this sort of confusion. Stop all this flapping about and get to the point.
actually you can criticise ibertarianism much on the same points

So you're telling me that Sweden contributed lots to the world until about fifty years ago, round about when it became socialist.
sweden is social democratic not socialist